I would like to see an animal rights thread here. This being the next best thing, I became vegan because I have heard no logical argument for the continuation of animal product consumption. There are many reasons not to eat animal products: animal welfare/rights, environmental reasons, health concerns, money, etc. To avoid creating strawmen, I would like to know why you choose to continue to exploit animals if you are an omnivore? What is your reason for doing so. Afterall, it's up the the proponent of an action to justify it. It seems that omnivores try to turn this equation around for those abstaining from an action.
Honestly. Because I like the taste and I have no faith in my fellow man. I'll be here for a while, then I'll be gone, people will still be eating meat and killing each other. I know, it's a morbidly selfish and morally bankrupt stance, and I hate myelf for it. I'll become a vegan tomorrow I promise.
If you have no faith in your fellow man, why would you eat a 'product' that is the bioaccumulation of toxins sprayed on the animal's feed, hormones and antibiotics, and the result of suffering wrought by such people? There are many people who beleive it's BECAUSE we eat animal products (thereby enslaving animals) that we kill other humans as well. Afterall, we are all animals. How we treat one would influence how we treat the other. I would really like to keep sarcastic remarks aside. I would like to keep these debate candid but civil.
Well, it's not necessarily that I'm not at all worried about chemicals in food, and the marginalisation of the small farmer for example. Monsanto and the "Sustainable development" movement is truly a terrifying concept if you look at it from the dissenters point of view. When I say I have no faith in my fellow man, I believe there is chaos, and will be forever, without the implementation of some kind of debillitating totalitarian global state which manages to solve the "human problem". So, as strange as it is, chaos is somewhat to be protected... we're disparate, and diverse, we eat meat, sometimes morally. Yep. I mean native Americans had a good philosophy, in terms of human co-operation, their ideals are cited as something we in the concrete metropolis should gravitate to. Nobody runs around condemning them for hunting do they? So really is it not eating meat, or supporting the more moral companies... if those exist? Oh god I'm rambling... what was it? Faith in human beings... well, look, I can't help but think the future is bleak for human folk, and in terms of the environment, maybe that's not such a bad thing. I'm going to hell. I'm half-joking here don't get upset. That wasn't entirely sarcastic. My brother and sister are vegetarians. I do consider it from time to time. Maybe I'll switch to just fish.
I would shrivel up and blow away if I couldn't eat my meat, fish Milk, real Butter and Cheese. But don't despair... I crave the vegies too.... The animals are there for us. Just like the mosquitos are for the bats. The worms for the robins. I tend to think that animal rights activists are actually anti-human....kind of a self-hatred type of thing.
Why do you believe you would "shrivel up and blow away"? Yes, most veg*ns have a lower BMI, but that is because we fall into a healthier range rather than overweight or obese. I think I will respond to this one in a quote: "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men." - Alice Walker Nothing is "here" for anything else. To further discredit this assertion: if I decided to have children and made them my slaves, this would be acceptable because this is why I had children?
I think Monsanto is horrible too. But most soy, wheat and corn in the US is fed to livestock and it is GM crops. I'm not sure what you mean by chaos. If by suffering, mostly likely you are right. As a negative utilitarian, my aim is to minimize that suffering as much as possible. And I have to agree that humans seem to be overly destructive. My goal is to live off the grid. Unfortunately I need to make money to even do that... As for Native tribal peoples, I have read several sources (most notably: "Limited Wants, Unlimited Means") which indicates that even modern hunting societies do so for the same reason(s) we do today: Tradition and/or taste. So if it is not indeed a necessity, I would be equally opposed to an indigenous. That's good. It's hard to gauge sarcasm on the internet lol.
See, you don't know me. Or my family. We don't have body fat. I'm 48 and thrilled that I can finally wear a size 1 jeans instead of size child 14. My daughter would be sick if she didn't have meat, fat and whatever else animals offer. We are small boned and need milk for strong bones. As small slender people tend to get osteoporosis. Vegans don't realize that they can't dictate diets to other people. I am blessed that I tend to crave what I need. And sometimes I crave vegies. And sometimes I crave Milk---whole milk. And sometimes I crave red meat. The above quotes are equating human beings with animals. And if you equate your own species...human beings---as no more important then animals.....that is your individual desire. I personally think that is self-destructive and unhealthy. No species of animal will consider another species as more important. It would be the sign of death for the species. Your children are no more important then a puppy. Your wife is no more important then a bird. Its rather sad. So yes...the bird eats the worm and the human eats the cow. To say we aren't apart of this ecosystem like any other species on this planet is like saying we should be exterminated.
I think a lot of animal rights folks have never experienced being below the top of the food-chain in the wild. A bear, wolves, big cat (for instance) is not going to grant YOU any 'rights' except the 'right' to be KILLED and/or EATEN. So go-ahead and get 'grain-fed' you'll smell and taste a lot better. Beyond that a vegan diet lacks B-12 and they must consume foods fortified with it. Vegans typically consume less protein that omnivores. Also micronutrients such as Vitamin D, calcium and certain fatty acids need to be consumed as supplements. Low Vitamin D intake is associated with a higher risk of cancer. To be sure there are many advantages to a diet focused on vegan-type food however some meat (IMO) is advantageous. Any diet concentrating on one type of food group is, I believe, deleterious to the human body. I prefer to eat a wide variety of foods and that includes meat.
I like meat, love it and will never stop eating it. I can add though that I'm not for treating cattle as.. well cattle (pardon the expression). I want them to live happily, until they are slaughtered. If in the future we can make our meat without having to make animals suffer (science is truly amazing, it will not be long before it's possible) I'm all for that. And besides, being a vegan is just silly. Nobody cares, you are not making any difference. You're just making your body weaker, and never get to eat meat.. that taste. mm. the selfrighteousness might have a sweet taste too though. Humans are omnivores, plain and simple. The rest of the animal kingdom doesn't give a hoot about killing others, why should we? And I have to say that I believe your thesis that meat comsumption is what makes us kill, or want to, other people is ridicolous. You are a vegan, fine. But you don't have to try and justify it with "it's actually a more healthy lifestyle" and "humans are actually herbivores" and the like. it's silly.
I love meat. I raise my own beef and pork...chickens...eggs. I do not milk the cows....I buy the milk. It is much less expensive for me to raise my own meat and vegetables and very...very... little in our household goes to waste. We even use our lawn clippings to feed the livestock. The manure goes back into the land and the soil is improved. The pigs improve the relly hard ground by rooting and fertilizing. They have a plow on one end and a manure spreader on the other. We also raise a lot of our animals feed...not because we are concerned about GMOs but because it is cheeper. What you vegans throw away.. I turn into meat. Our animals have very good lives...spoiled as a matter of fact....we feel we owe them that. I can raise a pig, have it butchered and put in the freezer, for about .60 cents a pound...thats pretty cheap for first class meat. We also raise a lot of vegetables and anything we do not eat...the animals do.
You heard of terminator seeds? This is no doubt skewed, because most of the stuff I know is half learned, second hand, via knights of templar, or debauchery I forget... but anyway, supposedly these scum sucking bastards are trying to monopolise certain seeds by creating crops which do not reproduce. So for farmers to re-plant, they must buy more seeds. The top ten seed companies control half the worlds seed market... so just imagine, it's badness, like some real corporate bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Well no, not really. I'm saying chaos is to be protected, we should be allowed to make mistakes and (*)(*)(*)(*) ourselves up and get drunk and high and horny and frolic in the woods, y'know? Fascism, hard or soft power, whether Huxleyan or Orwellian - these warnings are serious ones... we much protect the organic nature of things. Therefore indigeneous peoples get a pass from me, as soon as things get corporate, however, and organised, it all takes a trip down the spiral of shame. Ronald McDonald is right down at the bottom trying to suck his own... I digress. God I needs a burger! Well this is the thing. I'm trying to be like you, but in order to do so, you have to have faith in man. There's the whole "Well what if everyone though like you" argument. One person can make a difference and so on. Which is true... I know, but like I said human folk are rather predictable, we've just got taller and more or less articulate, industrialised, or technologised... but not much more cohesive or moral. And then even if we were cohesive, what does that mean... some kind of depoliticised, globalised, common goal police state of doom. Yes Dooom I tell you DOOOOOOOOOOOM! Oh god... and then you ask me about animals. Well the animals were here a long time before us, and they'll be here a long time after us. That's life, it's good at that. Well I think the best thing about ottawa indians was the idea that peoples who became greedy, who wanted more than they needed, weren't only regarded with contempt, but were considered sick, or insane. It simply was not the Indian way. It was, a socialistic society. But try and introduce that on a big scale... everyone just starts shooting each other screaming "revolution"... So I become an absurdist, a surrealist... it's all a dream, count me out and don't expect me to try and save anyone. To balance out my Karma I give to a conservation charity called the Aspinal foundation. And another one called... uh... oh yeah Concern Universal, they help third world kids or something. Yeah.
Taste, convenience, variety, health (yes, really), cost (in some circumstance), supporting local producers but primarily because I've not been given strong enough reasons to cut out all animal products from my diet. That doesn't mean I don't avoid a while range of specific things, often for the same kind of reasons you avoid all animal products. The question of justification only really kicks in when people suggest others could/should/must do what they do. Personally, I'm not saying you should consume any animal products.
You need calcium and exercise for strong bones. Not necessarily milk. The countries with the highest milk production actually have the greatest risk of osteoporosis and breast cancers (probably because of all the estrogen-like compound and growth promoters that are meant for calves). How do you know your daughter would be sick? Has she tried eating a vegan diet? Funny, because aren't you dictating the lives and diets of other creatures by eating meat? Another blanket and ungrounded statement. Why is it unhealthy? Why is it self-destructive. I think consuming large amounts of animal products (which you seem to indicate you do), is highly destructive to animals, one's self and the environment. Who said anything about more important? I mean if my dog was drowning, versus someone I didn't know, I would save the creature that I had the emotional attachment to if I could only save one. And I'm saying meat consumption should probably be eliminated (or at the VERY least, significantly reduced). Otherwise we will most likely exterminate ourselves.
Actually, I am reading "Man the Hunted" right now which indicates that hominids probably evolved from being prey. And last I checked our anatomy wasn't even that of a carnivore, or even true omnivore (which are much more like carnivores anyway). This is why many meat eaters are also B12 deficient. Furthermore, B12 is produced by bacteria, not animals themselves. Vitamin D is obtained from sunshine. So it's more a result of lack of goign outside than any dietary choice. Removing products that are known to be unhealthy is deleterious how?
Okay, you are being stupid. You don't want to treat cows like cows? Talk about cognitive dissonance at its finest. If you want to be personally insulting, I will insult your beliefs and actions too. You are also victim blaming. If you remove the pain it makes it okay. What about psychological suffering? Or are you referring to making meat in a vat? I'm pretty sure us systematically destroying the Earth and causing mass extinctions IS a concern to most animals! Seeing as you are just putting ungrounded opinion into your arguments, there is probably little else to say to you.
Because I have some commonsense. Ummmm yes, I am. I would never make YOU eat meat though.... The fact that the life of your dog is priority over a human being....is very unhealthy. But human beings are free to be self-destructive. Other species have more sense.
Okay, I don't have time to respond to keep responding to everyone individually. And it's a time to be a little more thought provoking (hopefully without being too insulting). I didn't want to strawman, but as I strongly suspected, "because they taste good," is one of the most common replies. In fact, it boils down to the ONLY reply, as many notable animal liberationists (namely Peter Singer) point out. There is no physiological reason requiring us to eat meat or animal products, especially in this day and age. Tradition is a joke, simply because that 'tradition' (as I mentioned in an earlier post) again boils down to taste. It could also justify slavery of humans, serfdom, rape, murder, etc. So this line of reasoning is - for lack of a better word - absurd. It is both victim blaming, and hedonistic. If we all behaved according to such principles rape, molestation, murder, and other crimes of passion are al justified. "She was dressed like a whore, so that's why I raped her." It is because she tantalized my senses that this makes it okay? Now this being said, another central issue people took offence to (and most likely because I am questioning their most long-held beliefs) is that I don't hold humans as any higher worth than other animals. Why? Because in our ability to perceive pain and pleasure, we are essentially equal. We may feel things slightly differently, but then again, so do all humans. Some humans do not even feel pain. Some are sociopaths who do not feel emotions. This is why I consider us to be of equal worth and why I came to this conclusion. There is no definition of 'human' that isn't either: a) Paradoxical (i.e. What is a human? Homo sapiens. What is Homo sapiens? A human.) b) All-inclusive (i.e. a defition that would omit some a priori notion of human or include some/most/all animals) c) Speciesist (similar to being paradoxical) d) Based on non-provable religious beliefs (i.e. the mention of a soul, or God(s)-created, etc.). So where does this leave us? Well I have more questions for you. What is a 'human'? Provided you can even provide a definition that isn't flawed as I mentioned above, what makes 'humans' superior? Even if we are superior, why does this give us the right to exploit other animals? can we do whatever we want to beings we feel inferior? Again, I won't assume anything at the moment, but I have a strong suspicion of the type of replies I will receive. I don't like constructing strawmen so I will let you answer first.
That hasn't been any of the replies. It has been a part of some replies, because most of us seem to be answering honestly. I consider it dishonest (and yes, a strawman) to extract that aspect of our replies and address it alone, out of context. I'm not convinced it is quite that simple - it depends on who and where you are. It is certainly more difficult to build a fully balanced diet having excluded any and all animal products. It's also more difficult to do so without replacing them with potentially environmentally or socially damaging alternatives (fruit and vegetable production aren't immune to bad farming practices). My preference it to address products and sources individually (as far as is practical) rather than start with an automatic conclusion that all animal products are bad (and by extension, all non-animal products are good). I don't think we're superior. I do think we're different, primarily due to our levels of self-awareness and imagination. Some animals eat other animals though.
a Species must hold their species above others in order to thrive. That is the nature of things. To say that humans should consider themselves as equal to other species-----actually says that we are inherently inequal to other species. A person that has that attitude tends to view human beings more as parasites in my opinion. Singer by the way----was someone who advocated that babies--born and thriving babies-- can ethically be killed and that humans can have loving sexual relationships with animals. He's not one that quite had his cap on right.
Debatable. Common sense would dictate TRYING something before making unfounded claims about it. Maybe re-read that statement. I was referring to non-human animals. More ungrounded opinion.
Well, humans are more like a virus or a cancer. We are actually killing our host. And as for species, we don't have to view our entire species as superior. In fact, most animals just view their own family (i.e. genetic line) as superior. Will even go out of their way in many cases to kill species of their own type to defend their genetics. I think those two things were taken out of context. Source please? Not that I am idyllic over Singer or anything, but many of his argument make the most logical sense. The fact they are attributed to him isn't really relevant. I don't know why I attached his name to them in hindsight.
The issue of animal rights is interesting. For one we all share a common ancestor, we are all connected by this, we are essentially one biomass living on the planet. With that in mind, it would seem wrong to eat another animal (I am going to ignore/dismiss plants at the moment, they lack a nervous system), however it occurs everyday. Both inside and outside of the direct influence and actions of humans. We must all kill something in order to survive. Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........ This is necessary. This is necessary. - Disgustipated However I suppose the real moral and crux of the issue, if whether or not we, as conscience beings, without or without being at the top of the food chain, are morally and ethically obligated to recognize suffering and do our best to prevent it. That would include killing animals for food. Maybe it is not so much killing but how it is done? Take a farm raised chicken for example, this animal lives its entire life in a small confined area until the day it dies and/or is slaughtered. Take wildlife, they live a normal full life until the day they are harvested. Just an interesting thought.
It is enough that producers package meat for my consumption as well as other foods. I eat what I want and have no ethical dilemma about eating animals. Don't eat meat if that is your decision, if you personally have an ethical dilemma about that. When you cite environmental issues in your initial assertion, what exactly does that mean? Greenhouse gas effects? Water usage for agriculture specifically attributed to livestock harvesting, vs domestic usage, vs non livestock agriculture of produce?
