| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Luceit
Defender of Highland
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Post Count: 1002
Location: Blight's Bay
371188 Potch
2170 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| Quote: |
I'm vegetarian (I decided to join these forums solely to inform you all... haha). I decided to become vegetarian many years ago but I didn't end up starting until about two years ago. Whenever I wouldn't eat my steak/chicken/corpse I was always punished so I just submitted. I choose not to eat meat for several reasons, the biggest being simply that I find the thought of eating flesh to be incredibly morbid. Whenever I ate meat, I could never shake the idea that I was eating somebody's baby. Eating it just does not seem necessary to me. Sure, protein deficiency, whatever. It's not as if consuming protein makes up for the other slop that (most) North Americans consume.
|
When you think about it, children actually don't start eating meat at once. In fact, some people say that you need to be trained to eat meat. Besides that, it's said that humans are not biologically evolved to handle meat. Proof? Look at carnivores; ever see them suffering from obesity?
| Quote: |
I think that all slaughter is horrible. I don't know much about slaughter and nor would I like to.
|
Huh, you should see how these religious people slaughter animals. No, wait...
| Quote: |
Actually, I'm considering becoming vegan. I love cheese and all, but I don't think some cow has to be locked in a barn all its life simply to fulfill my cheese-lusts. If I were a women, I think I would be fairly upset if somebody forced me to lactate into a machine. There are more important things to me than flavour.
|
Good luck with that. Actually, being vegan is the best option if you're already vegetarian, but I couldn't bear with it even if I was to become vegetarian someday. Reason? I love my pasta. :P
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Look at carnivores; ever see them suffering from obesity? |
yes, because Leopards sit on the couch all day eating fatty foods and drinking soda. I knew a fat vegaterian. also, just think what you said,
tell me a hunting preditor is like some guy with a supersized McDonolds meal. Fats, sugars, carbs all help in making you fat. need somthing to burst your bubble? I eat the little critters and the most I've weighed was 90 pounds. I also eat crap like boxed Macoronie and cheese and poptarts.
| Quote: |
| Besides that, it's said that humans are not biologically evolved to handle meat |
boy those Inuit people sure are stupid. We should save them by opening up some Olive Gardens and giving them poptarts and ceaser salads.
| Quote: |
| I could never shake the idea that I was eating somebody's baby |
animals eat their own babies, then again those ones are more than likly to be repetiles or lions with defective cubs. Chickens eat broken eggs/unfertilzed. And squrrils eat baby birds. everyone is somebodys baby.
| Quote: |
| somebody forced me to lactate into a machine. There are more important things to me than flavour. |
in modren times you mean? What about people who don't live modrenised/westrenized? sure that is a factory thing, But the cows have been breed now to produce a lot more milk than they would naturaly.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
Last edited by kuwaizair on Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luceit
Defender of Highland
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Post Count: 1002
Location: Blight's Bay
371188 Potch
2170 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, what I meant was this: Carnivores eat only meat, yet they suffer from little meat-related problems. They can metabolize meat a lot better than humans.
For the Inuit one, I think they're already adapted to it. Even so, they avoid livers as the animal livers have large amount of toxins.
Not to say that we should all become vegetarian of course; just presenting a different point of view.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| For the Inuit one, I think they're already adapted to it. Even so, they avoid livers as the animal livers have large amount of toxins. |
that to, as for the toxians it also could be because of um. the sea problem. Eating a seal wich is an animal more on the top of the marine food chain, the animal will absorbe any toxians from all the food ever eaten, starting from conaminated planktion. (I think)
I read somehwere that the're thinking of growing meat in factories without animals. its just like cloning flesh without the beast. I found it intersting becuse one day I invesioned someting like growing greenhouse, only with orange lights, indoors and rows of meat being grown in yards.
imagen that? "I'd like 2 yards of chicken please for my barbique"
Its been done I recon, but the texture is like chicken nugget mateiral. without an animal to grow on and move around it won't have the same structure. Just think what kind of job that would be, to kneed and massase and work a blob of cloned muscle tissue.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
The organs and flesh of most animals is "edible" but the ones who hibernate are dabgerous to eat. Because they cant get rid of urine and stuff like that it builds up and makes it too infected to eat. Russian bears are a good example of this.
Luceit, yes animals eat only meat like lions for example but as you said an animals stomach is able to handle this amount of toxin. And besides the animals they actually eat would be good for human consumption if cooked properly.
EDIT: LOL, by the way. I cant beleive I actually got someone to join with this thread lol.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camus the Noble
Les Renés
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| I tribute this thread to Camus The Noble lol, he knows why. |
A thread dedicated to me? Why, I'm flattered. Even if the thread existed on another site before Sniper ever met me. :wink:
| Quote: |
| 1. Are you a meat eater, vegitarian or vegan and if so why? Tell us the story of what made you do so? |
I am a vegetarian.
I was raised in a meat-eating family, in a meat-eating culture. Meat was never a vital part of my diet, but it was an important one, and tended to serve its customary purpose as the centerpiece of each meal. I never gave vegetarianism or veganism much thought, for a number of reasons: I had been raised my whole life to see meat-eating as normal, and it's a fact of psychology that if a person sees something as normal he or she will be less likely to see it as bad; I had been eating meat since before I was old enough to care about the ethics involved; and when I did think about it, I tossed aside the idea that we should care about killing animals, because, after all, "they're not human."
The first influence toward my becoming vegetarian was my cousin, who stopped eating all land animals a few years ago. Asking him why, he explained to me why he was no longer eating meat (sea animals excluded): the conditions under which most meat is produced (here in the US) are terrible, and meat production is inefficient in that the resources used could be put to much better use. Interestingly, he called himself a "vegetarian" (and still does) despite the fact that he continued (and continues) to eat sea creatures, especially salmon and shrimp. I'm not quite sure why so many people do not include fish in their definition of meat, and I get exasperated sometimes explaining to people that when I say I don't eat meat I mean fish too. But I digress.
Anyway, over a year ago, between Christmas and New Year's Eve of 2005, I switched to more or less the same diet that my cousin followed. It didn't affect my overall menu too much. I had always preferred fish to other types of meat anyway, so I just ate seafood more often.
Late last year, some time around November, my beliefs on the subject of meat-eating changed again. The primary cause was my introduction to the work of the philosopher Peter Singer. Singer, one of the most famous (and controversial) ethicists of our time, became famous in the 1970s for authoring the loftily-titled Animal Liberation, which argued against meat-eating from a philosophically moral perspective. The short version: Suffering is bad, causing suffering is immoral, non-human suffering is as bad as human suffering, the meat industry causes great suffering to an immense amount of sentient beings; therefore the meat industry is immoral. One of Singer's best-known ideas is the concept of speciesism: that our belief that we have more moral obligations to other humans than we do to other animals based purely on the fact that they are human, and not on any particular characteristics they have, is an unjustified form of partiality on a par with racism and sexism. I agree with this, and after reading most of Singer's work I have become more convinced that vegetarianism is not merely preferable to an omnivorous diet, but is morally superior in a non-trivial way. No doubt, this sounds more than a bit arrogant, but that has no relevance to its truth or lack thereof. Singer's most recent book, The Way We Eat, also convinced me to give up fish and other seafood.
I highly recommend Singer's books to anyone who is interested in the ethical arguments for vegetarianism or veganism.
That said, although Singer is a vegan, I am not. I still eat dairy products and eggs. I do believe that veganism is the most moral diet; however, in the smallish town I live in, it's not really feasible. The nearest market selling a wide variety of vegan and vegetarian products is at least twenty minutes away from where I live, and I simply cannot drive there to do all my grocery shopping. Fortunately, the local supermarket does sell milk and eggs produced under more humane conditions, and so I only buy those. In the future, I may become a full-fledged vegan; as you can see, I've been moving steadily in that direction for a while.
There is a general perception that being vegetarian is a lot harder than following an omnivorous diet. In my experience this is simply not the case. Removing meat from my diet hasn't bothered me much at all. I never felt a particular attachment to the stuff; and then there are companies such as Morningstar Farms and Quorn that make meat-like foods that are sometimes nothing short of delicious. The biggest drawback is probably the higher price tag, but I firmly believe it's worth it to follow a more ethical diet.
| Quote: |
| 2. What do you think about animal slaughter in your country? |
It's a big issue for me. In the United States, most meat in produced in factory farms where concern for the animals' welfare is practically nonexistent. One of the best examples in the veal industry. Veal calves are most of the time sustained on a diet that is designed to be low in iron, making the calf anemic and turning its flesh pink, which for some reason makes veal more appealing to connoisseurs. The extent to which we put our culinary tastes above this mass of suffering is scarcely believable. Now, some people make it a point to eat meat from animals that, although killed, were treated more humanely during their lifetime. I don't really have an opinion on whether this sort of meat production is immoral or not, but I certainly think that the ethical gap between it and vegetarianism, should there be one, is many times smaller than the gap between it and standard factory farming.
| Quote: |
| 3. Do you care about how the animals you eat are reared and raised? Do you really care or do you even want to know where your food comes from? |
I think the information I've given above should be more than enough to answer both these question. To reiterate, yes, I care about the welfare of animals that are raised for slaughter. To do otherwise is to be willfully ignorant and passive. Without meaning any particular offense to meat-eaters, I must say that I consider glossing over the issue to be extraordinarily immoral. When reasonable people hear of the genocide in Sudan, or sex slavery in Southeast Asia, they are outraged and demand the international community act to stop it. We should feel the same way when we read of the horrors inflicted on the animals that we kill and ingest for our own ends. Of course, most of us don't, and the reasons why are easy to see. The most important is that arguing against genocide is just easy. Practically everyone agrees that it's a bad thing. But there is no such consensus on meat-eating. Indeed, vegetarians and vegans are in a very small minority, and to argue against meat-eating is to argue against one of the most universally accepted customs of society. And then, of course, realizing that one needs to make a significant change in one's lifestyle can always be hard. But nevertheless, doing the right thing isn't always easy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| who stopped eating all land animals a few years ago |
you do realise how board a term "animal" is, saying you eat 'sea animals' could indicate you eat shrimp, fish, seals and whales. As well as worms, jellyfish, sea cucmbers, sea urchans. On the other side, the same again, for land animals. Salamanders, crickets, cows, hawks, dogs are some animals.
just you know. nit-picking.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lol, its when you mentioned you were a vegaterian on my "Your Law...." thread.
Ive read your post and Im a little blown away lol, Im not sure what to say. Only that I thought fish were OK to eat because they dont feel pain?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
Ive read your post and Im a little blown away lol, Im not sure what to say. Only that I thought fish were OK to eat because they dont feel pain? |
I don't know how much pain is felt during suffocation, as most of the fishing I've seen, the fish die from being pulled out of the water. Either way though, I don't imagine it's a great way to die.
Myself, I'm a meat eater and don't really foresee myself changing anytime soon. I don't think eating meat is immoral, just a natural part of human nature of being omnivores. If people feel differently, that's all fine. It's no skin off of my teeth.
I would prefer for the animals I eat to be treated humanely, but I know that, for the most part, they aren't. If I eventually live in a place where they sell meat from animals that aren't mistreated, I'll probably buy that meat, as it would probably taste better.
However, it doesn't concern me enough to make me stop eating it. If I did change to vegetarian, it would probably be for health reasons. I try not to gorge on it because too much of it, like anything, isn't healthy, but I don't foresee myself stopping. It's not like it's anythign unique to humans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luceit
Defender of Highland
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Post Count: 1002
Location: Blight's Bay
371188 Potch
2170 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: I'd agree, but... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Late last year, some time around November, my beliefs on the subject of meat-eating changed again. The primary cause was my introduction to the work of the philosopher Peter Singer. Singer, one of the most famous (and controversial) ethicists of our time, became famous in the 1970s for authoring the loftily-titled Animal Liberation, which argued against meat-eating from a philosophically moral perspective. The short version: Suffering is bad, causing suffering is immoral, non-human suffering is as bad as human suffering, the meat industry causes great suffering to an immense amount of sentient beings; therefore the meat industry is immoral. One of Singer's best-known ideas is the concept of speciesism: that our belief that we have more moral obligations to other humans than we do to other animals based purely on the fact that they are human, and not on any particular characteristics they have, is an unjustified form of partiality on a par with racism and sexism. I agree with this, and after reading most of Singer's work I have become more convinced that vegetarianism is not merely preferable to an omnivorous diet, but is morally superior in a non-trivial way. No doubt, this sounds more than a bit arrogant, but that has no relevance to its truth or lack thereof. Singer's most recent book, The Way We Eat, also convinced me to give up fish and other seafood.
|
Ah, the classic argument against eating animals. It IS a good argument, but it's hard to apply because animals are needed for more than just meat. Besides that, farmers who have chickens and cows may believe that they would make a loss if they didn't sell this animals as meat. Not only that, when old horses die, they are sold to the tanners. In other words, this moral theory is sound, but falters in the light of money. In order to convince the industries to stop producing meat then, one must first work a way around this problem without diminishing profits. Can you do it?
| Quote: |
That said, although Singer is a vegan, I am not. I still eat dairy products and eggs. I do believe that veganism is the most moral diet; however, in the smallish town I live in, it's not really feasible. The nearest market selling a wide variety of vegan and vegetarian products is at least twenty minutes away from where I live, and I simply cannot drive there to do all my grocery shopping. Fortunately, the local supermarket does sell milk and eggs produced under more humane conditions, and so I only buy those. In the future, I may become a full-fledged vegan; as you can see, I've been moving steadily in that direction for a while.
There is a general perception that being vegetarian is a lot harder than following an omnivorous diet. In my experience this is simply not the case. Removing meat from my diet hasn't bothered me much at all. I never felt a particular attachment to the stuff; and then there are companies such as Morningstar Farms and Quorn that make meat-like foods that are sometimes nothing short of delicious. The biggest drawback is probably the higher price tag, but I firmly believe it's worth it to follow a more ethical diet.
|
And thus you have your second reason why some people don't become vegetarian: Convenience. Convenience is a very strong factor in determining if a person will change their lifestyle, which explains why even health-conscious people may choose not to be vegetarian. The majority of the world's cultures have meat somewhere in their diets, while at least a number of the world's religions have ritual animal slaughter. Not only that, the overwhelming majority of people are meat eaters to a certain extent. In light of this, by simply comparing the factors together, it's easy to see why people shrug off the dangers of eating meat by saying that they don't care: It simply doesn't suit them.
| Quote: |
It's a big issue for me. In the United States, most meat in produced in factory farms where concern for the animals' welfare is practically nonexistent. One of the best examples in the veal industry. Veal calves are most of the time sustained on a diet that is designed to be low in iron, making the calf anemic and turning its flesh pink, which for some reason makes veal more appealing to connoisseurs. The extent to which we put our culinary tastes above this mass of suffering is scarcely believable. Now, some people make it a point to eat meat from animals that, although killed, were treated more humanely during their lifetime. I don't really have an opinion on whether this sort of meat production is immoral or not, but I certainly think that the ethical gap between it and vegetarianism, should there be one, is many times smaller than the gap between it and standard factory farming.
|
Not only that, veal calves are kept in boxes so that their meat is tender. They have little freedom to move around. However, according to one other person whom I talked to about this issue, people found gulity of unethical animal killing practices such as using the taser on chickens tend to get caught and sent to prison. I'm not sure how accurate is my info, since I've read a testimony from a slaugherhouse worker before and he says that it's standard. I strongly believe that animals should be treated more humanely because we meat-eaters owe our enjoyment of food to them. However, farms that actually do that are probably all but extinct by now.
| Quote: |
I think the information I've given above should be more than enough to answer both these question. To reiterate, yes, I care about the welfare of animals that are raised for slaughter. To do otherwise is to be willfully ignorant and passive. Without meaning any particular offense to meat-eaters, I must say that I consider glossing over the issue to be extraordinarily immoral. When reasonable people hear of the genocide in Sudan, or sex slavery in Southeast Asia, they are outraged and demand the international community act to stop it. We should feel the same way when we read of the horrors inflicted on the animals that we kill and ingest for our own ends. Of course, most of us don't, and the reasons why are easy to see. The most important is that arguing against genocide is just easy. Practically everyone agrees that it's a bad thing. But there is no such consensus on meat-eating. Indeed, vegetarians and vegans are in a very small minority, and to argue against meat-eating is to argue against one of the most universally accepted customs of society. And then, of course, realizing that one needs to make a significant change in one's lifestyle can always be hard. But nevertheless, doing the right thing isn't always easy.
|
You realize of course that most people feel that eating is a private issue? Besides, animals have had little to no rights since humans started eyeing their flesh; just look at how some people treat their pets, bulldoze forests and steal infant wild animals from their mother and even poach them. Those people are more immoral than the meat-eaters because they cause immediate pain to the animals and give them no shelter. Ethical issues are ethical issues, but before a person argues for a certain stand, other things must be taken into account to make it appealing.
Anyhow, who knows? I might become a vegetarian someday. Other than burgers, most of my favorite foods are not meat anyway and I can do fine with vegetarian meat.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
In my opinion the meat industry will NEVER be abolished, and vegatarians who are aiming to take them down are just naive and ultimatly wasting their time. People eat meat, have done for thousands of years, its a good part of a healthy diet and put simply it tastes awesome.
I think activists would do better spending more time monitoring farms and slaughter houses as well as helping to keep humane slaughter a must in this country and others. I know most animals lovers would see this as a betrayal but I think its the only way to help animals destined for the dinnerplate.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camus the Noble
Les Renés
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kuwaizair wrote: |
| you do realise how board a term "animal" is, saying you eat 'sea animals' could indicate you eat shrimp, fish, seals and whales. As well as worms, jellyfish, sea cucmbers, sea urchans. On the other side, the same again, for land animals. Salamanders, crickets, cows, hawks, dogs are some animals. |
I don't see the relevance. (Then again, considering your signature, that might have been the idea.) My cousin cut out all meat other than seafood from his diet. To my knowledge, he didn't sit down and give deep thought to whether he'd eat a seal or a sea urchin. Maybe he would have if those animals were more commonly eaten around here. But he wouldn't eat anything on your list of land animals (though the "yuck" factor would probably be enough to steer him away from salamanders and crickets, vegetarianism notwithstanding).
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| Only that I thought fish were OK to eat because they dont feel pain? |
There's no reason to think that fish can't feel pain. They have brains, and are presumably conscious to an extent. Scientific studies have suggested that fish can feel pain. Saying that fish are not conscious seems to me to be highly implausible.
| Amyral wrote: |
| I don't think eating meat is immoral, just a natural part of human nature of being omnivores. |
I hear this a lot, and it perplexes me how intelligent people can really think this is a good argument for meat-eating. What is natural does not equal what is good.
| Luceit wrote: |
| It IS a good argument, but it's hard to apply because animals are needed for more than just meat. |
Strictly speaking, they're not needed for much. Vegans seem to get along just fine without using any animal products.
| Quote: |
| In other words, this moral theory is sound, but falters in the light of money. In order to convince the industries to stop producing meat then, one must first work a way around this problem without diminishing profits. Can you do it? |
Well, I agree with Sniper Zegai that lobbying for better regulations on animal welfare is a better strategy for activists. There is some progress in this direction. "Humane" meat is slowly gaining ground in the market, and I believe that as it does, legislation or voluntary action on the part of meat producers will become more likely. Or activists could try to disseminate the information and organize large-scale boycotts of the meat producers (in fact, vegetarianism is a kind of boycott), forcing the meat producers to raise their standards or lose even more customers. Regardless, this has very little to do with my previous post. The idea was to explain why I am a vegetarian, not to write a manifesto for PETA.
| Quote: |
| And thus you have your second reason why some people don't become vegetarian: Convenience. Convenience is a very strong factor in determining if a person will change their lifestyle, which explains why even health-conscious people may choose not to be vegetarian. |
Yes, but the point of the section you quoted from my post was to refute the idea that eating vegetarian is especially inconvenient. Most people in first-world countries could very easily become vegetarians and make an effort to buy humane milk and eggs, making for a much more ethical diet. Now, veganism on the other hand, is truly inconvenient, and it's extremely hard to pull it off unless one lives close to a store selling a variety of vegan products. Even then it takes a bit of work. I'm well aware that most people aren't willing to put in the work to be either vegetarian or vegan, and I maintain, again, that they are acting immorally.
| Quote: |
| However, according to one other person whom I talked to about this issue, people found gulity of unethical animal killing practices such as using the taser on chickens tend to get caught and sent to prison. |
Luceit, you live in Malaysia, correct? Perhaps animal welfare laws over there are better than they are here. I live in the United States and so naturally I'm more concerned with the situation here. And here, I am pretty sure that these veal-producing practices are not illegal in any manner. They are certainly not extinct.
| Quote: |
| You realize of course that most people feel that eating is a private issue? |
Of course I realize this. The point is that I disagree. What foods one chooses to eat or not eat has an ethical impact than extends beyond oneself, unless one personally raises all one's food.
| Quote: |
| Ethical issues are ethical issues, but before a person argues for a certain stand, other things must be taken into account to make it appealing. |
Again, I'm not trying to write a program for animal rights activists. (Actually, I don't even like that phrase, since I don't believe morality is based on "rights.") To an extent, we're talking past each other. You're talking about the practical side of the issue, where I am not and have not been trying to. As far as the practical side goes, as I said, I don't believe immediate elimination of the meat industry is feasible, though it may be desirable. Raising the animal welfare standards is a much better short-term goal.
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| In my opinion the meat industry will NEVER be abolished, and vegatarians who are aiming to take them down are just naive and ultimatly wasting their time. |
Hmm... I can't help but think that a few hundred years ago anyone advocating the end of the slave trade or suggesting that women and men should have equal rights would have met a similar reaction. Back then, they might have heard "People own slaves, have done so for thousands of years, it's a good part of a healthy economy and put simply it just saves us so much work." I think that saying "never" about any future scenario is going too far. For instance, as we develop the technology to "grow" meat independently of animals, and as it becomes both cheap and clearly safe, the issue of convenience will fade, and people will be more inclined to give an ear to the moral arguments for vegetarianism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luceit
Defender of Highland
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Post Count: 1002
Location: Blight's Bay
371188 Potch
2170 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Strictly speaking, they're not needed for much. Vegans seem to get along just fine without using any animal products.
|
*Whistles* I don't think bakers would really appreciate that.
| Quote: |
Yes, but the point of the section you quoted from my post was to refute the idea that eating vegetarian is especially inconvenient. Most people in first-world countries could very easily become vegetarians and make an effort to buy humane milk and eggs, making for a much more ethical diet. Now, veganism on the other hand, is truly inconvenient, and it's extremely hard to pull it off unless one lives close to a store selling a variety of vegan products. Even then it takes a bit of work. I'm well aware that most people aren't willing to put in the work to be either vegetarian or vegan, and I maintain, again, that they are acting immorally.
|
My point is that most people only do something when it fits them to do so. Yes, that does apply to being vegetarian as well. My aunt and uncle are vegetarian but we aren't, so everytime we go somewhere to eat, arguments ensue. One reason is that they don't want to eat anything that has even come from a wok tainted by meat. I'm well aware that killing animals is immoral, but I'm not in a position to stop eating meat right now either.
| Quote: |
Luceit, you live in Malaysia, correct? Perhaps animal welfare laws over there are better than they are here. I live in the United States and so naturally I'm more concerned with the situation here. And here, I am pretty sure that these veal-producing practices are not illegal in any manner. They are certainly not extinct.
|
*Cough* Beta agonist *Cough*. I think that it appears that Malaysia has better animal rights because no one cares, therefore it doesn't get reported. If you want to know though, animal laws for pets are highly loose, where a man who abused his pets severely was only jailed for two months.
| Quote: |
Again, I'm not trying to write a program for animal rights activists. (Actually, I don't even like that phrase, since I don't believe morality is based on "rights.") To an extent, we're talking past each other. You're talking about the practical side of the issue, where I am not and have not been trying to. As far as the practical side goes, as I said, I don't believe immediate elimination of the meat industry is feasible, though it may be desirable. Raising the animal welfare standards is a much better short-term goal.
|
I can agree with that. I don't suppose people would like to know that their meat went through so much abuse either.
| Quote: |
Hmm... I can't help but think that a few hundred years ago anyone advocating the end of the slave trade or suggesting that women and men should have equal rights would have met a similar reaction. Back then, they might have heard "People own slaves, have done so for thousands of years, it's a good part of a healthy economy and put simply it just saves us so much work." I think that saying "never" about any future scenario is going too far. For instance, as we develop the technology to "grow" meat independently of animals, and as it becomes both cheap and clearly safe, the issue of convenience will fade, and people will be more inclined to give an ear to the moral arguments for vegetarianism.
|
We're talking a lot of business here though and animal eating has gone on for more than just thousands of years. Sure there's a possibility, but it's highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Camus The Noble wrote: |
| Hmm... I can't help but think that a few hundred years ago anyone advocating the end of the slave trade or suggesting that women and men should have equal rights would have met a similar reaction |
You've got me there. I do beleive that people in that time period would never had imagined that their very own slaves would be walking as free and equal citizens in 100+ years, and in fact Im sure the slaves would'nt have beleived it either.
But there is a clear difference between human beings and animals. And the slaves were'nt being treated relativly well and then qiuckly killed or gassed. They were made to suffer for years and people could relate to them becuase they were human they could think, feel and love and I know animals can do this as well but I doubt enough people will be convinced that animals are close enough to humans to not be killed at all.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Camus the Noble wrote: |
I hear this a lot, and it perplexes me how intelligent people can really think this is a good argument for meat-eating. What is natural does not equal what is good. |
The organic food and environmental movements have been trying to say otherwise since their inception, and if it works for them, I have no problem using it myself.
I don't really care if it perplexes you or any other vegetarian/vegan. I'm not trying to convert anyone and don't expect to. I doubt there is any argument anyone could make that would convince you or most other moral vegetarians /vegans. It would be a futile effort, so I'm not going to get all hot and bothered if people disagree with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
