2 Question for Vegetarians

Blisterman

I'm not a vegetarian myself, and these are some things that I've wondered about for awhile.

Where do you draw the line, on refusing to kill any animal?
I know a lot of people say that they wouldn't kill any animal, but I don't think that's exactly true.
Would you set a mouse trap? What about using insecticide?
Even if you wash your hands, you're killing millions of bacteria. It's virtually impossible to avoid killing any living thing completely.

That's actually, why I feel I could never be a vegetarian.
How could I be willing to kill insects, and not willing to kill a cow? They are both equally animals.


My other question is, to vegetarians, is eating chicken worse than eating cows, as you only have to kill one cow, and you can feed a lot of people, while, to feed as many people, you have to kill dozens of chickens?
Just something I was curious about.

Tar.Aldarion

Blisterman wrote:

I'm not a vegetarian myself, and these are some things that I've wondered about for awhile.

Where do you draw the line, on refusing to kill any animal?
I know a lot of people say that they wouldn't kill any animal, but I don't think that's exactly true.
Would you set a mouse trap? What about using insecticide?
Even if you wash your hands, you're killing millions of bacteria. It's virtually impossible to avoid killing any living thing completely.

That's actually, why I feel I could never be a vegetarian.
How could I be willing to kill insects, and not willing to kill a cow? They are both equally animals.

I wouldn't set a mouse trap and have already refused to do so. I would not use insecticide.
I think you are missing the point somewhat. We do not live to be bastions of morality. We live to do as little harm as possible. So, you have to kill some things, that doesn't mean we should just go around killing everything, and that it is pointless not trying to harm any animal. If I thought it was ok to harm all animals since I obviously harm some, I would have no problem killing a human or a cow or anything.
As it is, I think one should just try to live as 'vegetarian as possible' and that is a perfectly good lifestyle, living trying to harm animals as little as possible.
As for bacteria, they are practically just cells that split and you can't really avoid killing them no matter what you do. They do not have a biological makeup to feel anything(apart from a magnetic field in some cases) and I'm sure some people will argue that they are not conscious, do not feel or think, and if something attacks the person, they will stop it. If their body didn't kill it, it wold kill them etc.

My other question is, to vegetarians, is eating chicken worse than eating cows, as you only have to kill one cow, and you can feed a lot of people, while, to feed as many people, you have to kill dozens of chickens?
Just something I was curious about.

That is up to the individual. I don't think one is worse than the other. If you are going down that route, 'the senseless waste of the world's growing meat-centered diet is illustrated by the following hypothetical statement: "If everyone adopted a vegetarian diet and no food were wasted, current [food] production would theoretically feed 10 billion people, more than the projected population for the year 2050," according to a Reference Bureau, a Washington, D.C. based research group. Even today, 840 million people are malnourished and nearly 50,000 die of starvation every day.' - 1998

Ie, I believe it is.. 20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater. If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain) etc with the stupid facts. (:

Back to your question, I see no reason killing a chicken is more wrong because it feeds less people. It has still been killed. A cow may feed more, so it is better because it is bigger?
If I thought like that I would kill most things no problem, for being smarter than a human I could think I was better than it, for being bigger/smaller etc.
What makes it more wrong to kill one animal and not another?

queera

Where do you draw the line, on refusing to kill any animal?
I know a lot of people say that they wouldn't kill any animal, but I don't think that's exactly true.
Would you set a mouse trap? What about using insecticide?
Even if you wash your hands, you're killing millions of bacteria. It's virtually impossible to avoid killing any living thing completely.

Hi there

Im vegan and have not eaten meat in many, many years. I do so for spiritual reasons as well as (mainly) for animal rights.

On most days, I am confronted with these kinds of arguments - and understand that people who are not veggie or vegan find it difficult to understand.

You say you can never be vegetarian because of the fact that it is impossible to avoid killing any living thing completely. This is true, but I think if you can recognise or feel it is wrong to kill something (unnecessarily) for you to eat then why not limit the amount of life you do take on the planet.

I do not distinguish between types of animal (think eating a doggie who has big brown eyes and an eel to be morally the same thing) - therefore do not and will not ever set a mouse trap, use insecticide, use harmful chemicals to clean my home and try to limit the amount of violence I inflict on any living being while on the planet. I think most veggies and vegans are the same.

I hope this answers your question - I guess its about limiting the amount of damage we do, rather than seeing it as hypocritical to wash our hands due to the loss of bacterial life.

Maybe you might reconsider your decision never to bvecome a veggie!!

All the best

Nature Boy

I'm veggie and I don't think that it has to be all or nothing. If you let your morals get in the way of everthing you eat/use then life would just be unlivable.

I just do what I can do.I guess you just have to draw your own line and do whatever you're comfortable with.

I would set a mouse trap but it would be a non-lethal one.
I'm not willing to kill insects but I'm willing to accept that during the production of the food I eat, some insects will have been killed because of it. It's terrible that it happens, but again, there's only so much 1 person can do

Jimoslimos

So the general consensus here seems to be that the avoidance of deliberately killing other species is more important than not eating meat. Therfore I assume that accidentally stepping on an insect would be equivalent in most veggies minds to accidentally swallowing a fly (but admit it, you love the meaty bluebottle taste )

Oh and sorry to hijack this thread with another question, but how would a vegan feel about travelling in a car (not neccessarily owning) with leather seats?

seamus

The mistake you've both made is thinking that people are all vegetarian or vegan for the same reasons.

They're not. There are hundreds of different reasons why people are vegetarian. There are also hundreds of different reasons why someone may be vegan.

I'm vegetarian, but some other vegetarians may not agree with my reasons, the same as I may not agree with theirs.

It's not religion - you don't have to follow the same book.

Oh and sorry to hijack this thread with another question, but how would a vegan feel about travelling in a car (not neccessarily owning) with leather seats?

That would depend on the vegan. Many people take the approach they only *they* can control their actions. So, provided that they stick to their principles, they are happy. Refusing to ride in a car with leather seats isn't going to reduce the number of leather seats made. Refusing to *buy* such a car, will.

Where do you draw the line, on refusing to kill any animal?
I know a lot of people say that they wouldn't kill any animal, but I don't think that's exactly true.
Would you set a mouse trap? What about using insecticide?
Even if you wash your hands, you're killing millions of bacteria. It's virtually impossible to avoid killing any living thing completely.

I don't think it's necessarily about not killing living things.

Again, depends on the person. Some people I know refuse to eat meat on the basis of it being farmed, ill-treated and badly killed.
Insects aren't farmed to be eaten, and you couldn't argue that it's cruel to kill bacteria by washing your hands or using insecticide.

There's also a limit to it. You still have to look after number one. You can choose to never kill an insect, but you'll find yourself overrun soon enough, and you could easily die for it. If it was a matter of me dying, or a cow dying, the cow will die, every time. That's the nature of the world.

Mentalmiss

I do believe that you will not gain any knowledge from any reply that I could make to that and it is not my role in life to try to send you on a health journey that you do not wish to take or are not ready for.
When you are ready and open then come back and talk to us.

Nature Boy

I would definately avoid buying a car with leather seats

Jimoslimos

seamus wrote:

The mistake you've both made is thinking that people are all vegetarian or vegan for the same reasons.

They're not. There are hundreds of different reasons why people are vegetarian. There are also hundreds of different reasons why someone may be vegan.

I accept that, which is why I said the general consensus on this thread for being vegetarian was the avoidance of deliberate harm to other creatures.

seamus wrote:

Refusing to ride in a car with leather seats isn't going to reduce the number of leather seats made. Refusing to *buy* such a car, will.

Would the situation change if money entered the equation, e.g., a taxi - it could be argued that any increase in the number of cattle killed might be partially due to more customers paying to travel with leather seats?

seamus

Jimoslimos wrote:

Would the situation change if money entered the equation, e.g., a taxi - it could be argued that any increase in the number of cattle killed might be partially due to more customers paying to travel with leather seats?

Since many (if not most) taxis are also used as personal vehicles, I can't see the taxi industry having any major impact on the purchase of leather-seated vehicles - that is, I can't see a person choosing leather seats for their vehicles purely because they intend using it as a taxi.

Capt'n Midnight

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Ie, I believe it is.. 20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater. If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain) etc with the stupid facts. (:

or run a couple of dozen SUV's

JacobM

Nature Boy wrote:

I would definately avoid buying a car with leather seats

Smells awful. I'd go with synthetic leather regardless of the vehicle.