Are you all veggie because of principle or just don't like taste of meat?

JC 2K3

I eat meat and I've thought about why I do, it seems that there is no solid concrete reason not to, there's just a load of beliefs, I mean no one can say we're not designed to eat meat, sure they can draw up all sorts of theorys but they can't prove anything. Is it wrong to kill animals? Well it's wrong to kill humans because if humans killed each other the human race wouldn't survive, but why not just kill some humans and let the rest live? Because you couldn't distinguish between who to kill and who not to kill, but then why kill animals? They're living creatures along with us. But what can we eat if we don't have meat? Plants? But they're living organisms along with us..

What I'm trying to say is no one can for sure say where the limit to all this thinking is, I mean, animals killed for meat suffer, but they also suffer to some extent to provide us with eggs, milk etc. So is there any point in being just a vegetarian as opposed to a vegan? You're still eating products that animals had to suffer(to some extent) for you to have. But is being a vegan enough? Plant life is being destroyed so you can eat it, why should that be any different to animal life? A brain? But even though plants aren't as intelligent as animals they still have some form of intelligence, such as being able to adapt to their surroundings etc. Where do you draw the line between intelligent life and unintelligent life?

So IMO there's not really a solid logical reason not to eat meat, basically right now it's acceptable in society, it's healthy(despite how much "meat is unhealthy" propoganda vegetarian societies come up with) and the only reason not to eat it is because you've somehow convinced yourself it's wrong(fair enough, your opinion, i'm not going to bash anyone for doing it), you've taken on vegetarianism as you would a new age religion(ie. vegetarian societies preaching against eating meat) or to be cool(ugh, it's your life, don't just copy others or do it because some cool celebraty does it).

Of course this is all my opinion, feel free to avoid meat if you want and live a happy life, that's the most important thing.

Doctor Benway

JC 2K3 wrote:

What I'm trying to say is no one can for sure say where the limit to all this thinking is, I mean, animals killed for meat suffer, but they also suffer to some extent to provide us with eggs, milk etc. So is there any point in being just a vegetarian as opposed to a vegan? You're still eating products that animals had to suffer(to some extent) for you to have.

Not necessarily. Yes, certainly factory farming causes suffering, which is a good reason to, for example, only buy organic free range eggs if you do choose to eat eggs. Similarly, it's also possible to be more careful about what dairy products you purchase and seek out those which have resulted in less suffering than others. For example, EU animal welfare standards are far higher than those in the US and the level of suffering involved in Irish dairy farming would, in general, be of a lesser degree than in other states where dairy farms are far larger and more mechanised.

You appear to be taking an all-or-nothing approach to the argument, which is convenient if one wants to continue to eat meat. However, it's also possible to reduce the level of suffering animals endure even if you don't eliminate altogether. Veganism may be a laudable goal to aspire to, but the fact that some vegetarians may eat eggs or cheese doesn't somehow negate their vegetarianism.

But is being a vegan enough? Plant life is being destroyed so you can eat it, why should that be any different to animal life? A brain? But even though plants aren't as intelligent as animals they still have some form of intelligence, such as being able to adapt to their surroundings etc. Where do you draw the line between intelligent life and unintelligent life?

Well I would say that capacity for suffering, as well as some level of awareness, would come into play. Again, you seem to be taking a very black-and-white view, rather than recognising that there can be degrees of intelligence (although I wouldn't agree that plants have any form of intelligence, any more than my skin would have intelligence because it turns brown in the sun).

Animals are able to suffer; plants aren't. The greater the capacity an animal has for suffering the greater the consideration that should be given to their preferences to avoid suffering (of whatever nature). However, if you're just talking about physical pain, the pain of a cat is no different from the pain of an ape or a human, and each should be given equal consideration. The same principle can then be applied to like preferences. Which is what, basically, forms the basis for my vegetarianism (but it's not a belief that all vegetarians would necessarily share).

JC 2K3

So whether you are a vegetarian or not(for moral reasons) depends on how empathetic you are?

Doctor Benway

JC 2K3 wrote:

So whether you are a vegetarian or not(for moral reasons) depends on how empathetic you are?

What, me or people in general?

Anyway, no I don't think so. You can hold the position that you should give equal consideration to all beings who are capable of suffering without necessarily being particularly empathetic. It's a moral judgement based on a broadly utilitarian rationality, rather than some kind of emotional, subjective one.

Peanut

JC 2K3 wrote:

...
Plant life is being destroyed so you can eat it, why should that be any different to animal life? A brain? But even though plants aren't as intelligent as animals they still have some form of intelligence, such as being able to adapt to their surroundings etc. Where do you draw the line between intelligent life and unintelligent life?

So IMO there's not really a solid logical reason not to eat meat, basically right now it's acceptable in society, it's healthy(despite how much "meat is

Would you eat your pet dog?
An ape?
A neandearthal if they were still around?
If it could exist, a human/primate chimera?

I assume that since you don't know where to draw the line, all the above would be OK.

Like dr.benway says, I think you are trying to force this into a black and white question when it won't really fit into it.

You ask where do you draw the line - and it's an excellent question because I don't believe anyone knows the answer.

However just because we don't know where to draw imaginary lines (and I don't think there is a line as such in any case), doesn't mean that we can't make reasonable assumptions, like acknowledging that it's likely that most animals can experience suffering that is more similar to our own, than that of more distantly related forms of life.

In relation to logical reasons though, there is a blatant lack of logic in our disgust at certain asian countries having dog on the menu ("snack russell" ), and our nonchalance at the same when it involves cows or pigs. I'm not condemning meat-eaters, however the contradiction is there for anyone to see.

The Sweeper

Hooves and wings good. Paws and opposible thumbs bad. ...works for me.

Peanut

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Hooves and wings good. Paws and opposible thumbs bad. ...works for me.

Where does that leave the flying dogs?

Dave!

Peanut wrote:

This was the initial reason, but I do also believe humans are a variety of animal, and it's not good (on a number of levels) to eat your close relatives.

But animals eat other animals all the time... And some eat plants, too.. Lions eat bison, bison eat grass, snails eat leaves, etc.. It's the food chain, it's a natural occurance, and it's been that way since the dawn of life.

kestrel wrote:

1)i hate the way animals are viewed as much less important than us. i think we should respect them and show them due respect, if for nothing else than they give us life and are feeling, living things.

I agree that they should be shown respect, I think the Native Americans had the right idea -- respect the animals and the earth, and if you kill one, use it fully (ie. eat the meat, wear the skin, use the bones).

kestrel wrote:

2)an animal should be raised in comfort and have a happy life before being killed quickly and humanely. none of this factory farming, unnatural lives and cruelty.

What about hunting? Do you find that acceptable or is it the same story? I think that hunting something yourself, killing it, and eating it, is a good system.

And compared to the wild, or, the "olden days", animals are killed very quickly and humanely. Sure, lots of inhumane stuff goes on in certain plants, factories, etc., but for the most part they're stunned, knocked unconscious, and their artery cut. Now, compare that to the wild, when a lion would chase a gazelle or whatever around, and then jump on it, tear into it, and eat it. Lions aren't as meticulous or as smart as humans, and they don't have animal rights groups breathing down their manes either!

I'm not saying that it's nice how cows are killed, but we've come a long way, shall we say...

taibhse wrote:

I am a veggie though because imo it's wrong to eat animals. If you couldn't kill it yourself, why pay someone else to do it for you? The meat industry is so horrific, so wasteful and self-righteous. I hate the idea that people simply have a "right" to eat meat and that animals are simply "below" them.

I think your beef (pardon the pun, lol ) should be with the food chain, since that's what all animals do!

And I'll pose this question to you as well: is it ok to eat something that you've caught with your bare hands (or rather, with a weapon, since we have brains instead of brawn)

kestrel wrote:

i actually saw that too. it was on David Attenboroughs 'Life of mammals' i think- i found it really disturbing to see a group of chimps hunting some small monkeys. the chimps went out on hunting parties and chased down the prey. it think they used tools to kill it (i'm not sure) it was way too human, and it really made me ill to watch...evolution is progressing at an alarming rate.

Yeah I saw it too, actually. I thought it was a Ray Mears show, though, but you're probably right.

Washout wrote:

when i saw this thread i did a quick google and came up witrh the following link.
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

The human body was not designed to catch or eat animals

You have no claws.
Your teeth do not rend flesh.

We do not need them

Your mouth can not seriously wound nor is it made to really get a good bite into an struggling victim like true carnivores can.

You are not fit to run fast to catch prey.

We're omnivores... But we don't need to run fast to catch our prey, we have highly evolved brains, so we can design a weapon to cater for this.

Meat-eaters have fast enough reflexes to ambush or overtake a victim.
You do not.

Like I said, we have highly intelligent, naturally evolved, brains, which make it possible for us to devise plans to catch our prey. Plus, we hunt in groups, much like chimps -- another result of our brain.

Try catching a pig or a chicken with your bare hands; see what happens.

Well, humans have been hunting animals for thousands of years, so I don't see what the point here is... I guess it's cos we don't use our hands; again, we have a complex brain which enables us to catch prey without having to chase after it.

Peanut wrote:

Where does that leave the flying dogs?

The circus, lol

JC 2K3

Peanut wrote:

Would you eat your pet dog?
An ape?
A neandearthal if they were still around?
If it could exist, a human/primate chimera?

Pet dog: dog yes(If it was socially acceptable abnd readily available), pet dog no, but that goes back to my earlier statement, how much of a vegetarian you are depends on how empathetic you are...
Ape: sure, if it was socially acceptable and readily available
Neandearthol: Same as ape but silly question since they're not around
Human/Primate Chimera: wtf?

Peanut wrote:

In relation to logical reasons though, there is a blatant lack of logic in our disgust at certain asian countries having dog on the menu ("snack russell" ), and our nonchalance at the same when it involves cows or pigs. I'm not condemning meat-eaters, however the contradiction is there for anyone to see.

I'm with you on this one, except you take the "I'm not going to eat any meat" approach and I take the "I don't care what types of animals I eat" approach...

Peanut

DaveMcG wrote:

But animals eat other animals all the time... And some eat plants, too.. Lions eat bison, bison eat grass, snails eat leaves, etc.. It's the food chain, it's a natural occurance, and it's been that way since the dawn of life.

Sure they do - doesn't mean that we have to follow. 'Natural' is what we make it. Although I agree with you in a sense in that I think some people are better off eating meat, and others are not.

However from a purely infectious disease point of view, the more similar a living thing is to us the more likely it is that we can become cross-infected with whatever diseases it may have by eating the animal or having other contact with it, e.g. BSE, bird flu & others. I think even some things like the BSE proteins weren't affected that much by cooking.

On the flipside, meat is an abundant source of necessary proteins etc., so it's pretty good if you are living somewhere with sparse food available, but the advantages fade in Western countries (and tend to turn to disadvantages due to over-consumption and excessive processing of low quality products).

JC 2K3 wrote:

Ape: sure, if it was socially acceptable and readily available
Neandearthol: Same as ape but silly question since they're not around
Human/Primate Chimera: wtf?

re: neandeathal, well ok thery're not around now but just suppose you were living back when they were. For a more up to date example, let's replace it with the indonesian hobbit remains that were found.

My point is that we have this black and white view of "human" and "non-human", whereas really there is no definition of what to be human is.
And even if something isn't quite human according to our own current social standards, does that make it alright to kill it for food, when there are other food sources abundant?

I wouldn't rely on what's socially acceptable to make that decision, do you know that chimps can be trained to communicate with humans in (basic) sign language? Would this affect your opinion?

The point about the human/primate chimera, is that it will more than likely be possible in the future, indeed if it isn't already, to genetically modify primates to give them human genes etc. Now I know there are certain biological problems that make this very difficult, however it seems reasonable to assume that some sort of hybrid could be created.

I'm not interested in any moral questions about the validity of doing this, what I am proposing is that even if this is possible in theory, it must make people stop and think for at least a minute whether they would be happy treating the resulting entity as potential hamburger.

Dave!

I didn't actually post that second quote, mate

Peanut wrote:

I'm sorry Dave, I'll never misquote you again

No problem

Peanut

DaveMcG (afaik) wrote:

I didn't actually post that second quote, mate
....

oops.. right you are! duly amended...

JC 2K3

Peanut wrote:

re: neandeathal, well ok thery're not around now but just suppose you were living back when they were. For a more up to date example, let's replace it with the indonesian hobbit remains that were found.

My point is that we have this black and white view of "human" and "non-human", whereas really there is no definition of what to be human is.
And even if something isn't quite human according to our own current social standards, does that make it alright to kill it for food, when there are other food sources abundant?

I wouldn't rely on what's socially acceptable to make that decision, do you know that chimps can be trained to communicate with humans in (basic) sign language? Would this affect your opinion?

Not really, define intelligence. A plant being able to adapt to it's surroundings could be considered intelligent as could chimps being able to use basic sign language, what actually justifies killing an animal over a plant? A life is still ended, we can just be more empathetic with something that is more similar to us.

Tar.Aldarion

JC 2K3 wrote:

Not really, define intelligence. A plant being able to adapt to it's surroundings could be considered intelligent as could chimps being able to use basic sign language, what actually justifies killing an animal over a plant? A life is still ended, we can just be more empathetic with something that is more similar to us.

There is a difference between a reaction and a conscious decision.Yes a plant responds to light but so does a rock(expansion)
A plant is not sentient,it can't decide 'oh wait i will turn away from the sun!'
It is just a reaction to the sun that it has whereas something like a monkey,parrot etc etc can consciously decide what to do.What more it feels they feel things.Yes empathy,that decides a lot of things for people and that is why a lot of people would find it hard to kill a dog more so than a spider,it's wrong.
A parrot is as intelligent as a five year old child,where do you draw the line?how 'smart' does something have to be?how similar to us?what is a human?people are quite different from each other,they have races and whatnot.To say to you that a black person is not equal to us may sound silly but until recently people believed that and some people still do.If it comes down to fine detail people could even argue they are not the same race as us.How different or similar does a lifeform have to be until it loses it's right to be equal to us?Tbh If people think things that are not as smart as them are not equal then I would have every right to kill them if they have a lower IQ than mine?
Now off topic kinda(:
I have asked this hypothetical question to a lot to people,there are only two types of people in this scenario,white and black. A disease is discovered, it somehow affects white people only(what makes somebody coloured is somehow an immunity).It cannot be cured it is found out when all our methods have been exhausted. Most if not all white people will die unless experimentation is carried out(ie black people would have to be killed as happens with animal testing).There is a majority of white people.Do you start killing black people to save the majority.In this scenario they are effectively a different race, it is believed, due to this new found immunity.How much does the majority have to be for you to consider it?how different do the other race have to be?in this case the only notable difference is a shade of skin and a tiny difference in the genes.Ie they may possibly be the last evolutionary step from ape to human that there is.If you wouldn't kill them,how different do the people in the scenario have to be for you to think,'oh yes,it's ok'.Maybe a race that is not quite as smart as you but nearly?You can keep going back as far as something with the intelligence of a dog?how do you determine when something is suddenly not equal?you can't,imo all life is equally precious and nobody has the right to affect something elses life for their own gain.People can live a healthy life without killing animals.Infact people have been doing that for 5,000 years.You are right,what justifies killing a plant over an animal.
Even if the plant is not similar to us and is not sentient..it may still be wrong,who am I to say.The thing is the lesser of two evils clause.The plant isn't consciously aware it exists-an animal is.It can fell and think.Simple biology can tell you the same is not true for a plant.If an animal can feel and a plant cannot which would you prefer to eat?
You may ask what have I been drinking after that post.It has been a very bad morning,the answer is bulmers (:

JC 2K3

lol, lesser of two evils clause, it all still comes down to empathy

But meh, who am I to say you can't be empathetic?

Anto and Moe

I became a Vegetarian for moral reasons, but now, after about six years of vegetarianism, I wouldn't be able to be eat meat because I now find it so disgusting. Anyone who says they still get cravings for meat, or miss it or whatever, if you go to www.peta.com (you either love em or ya hate em) and check out any of the videos like 'Meet your Meat' you gradualy start finding meat far more unfortunate, you won't be able to associate it with food anymore, just with thoughts of death and displeasure n such. There not much fun to watch, but it really is a killer cure for the cravings. You may think it's harmless to want it but not eat it (and to an extent it is) but you could well find that after years of vegetarianism (I know people this has happened to) you just get drunk or whatever and start gobbeling the stuff, n ya don't last long after that.
Peace n Love
Anto.

Peanut

Anto and Moe wrote:

....You may think it's harmless to want it but not eat it (and to an extent it is) but you could well find that after years of vegetarianism (I know people this has happened to) you just get drunk or whatever and start gobbeling the stuff, n ya don't last long after that.

Sounds like me & coffee. Apart from the drunk bit that is, lol ...

EvilPixieOne

I just don't like the idea of eating it now, I've been veggie too long, I think I'd get sick or something

direbadger

I'm vegan because of principle, but the health benefits are a nice a bonus. I never get sick at all. Now I've probably jinxed myself and I'll get a cold tomorrow!