Vegetarianism

I am not a vegetarian, partly because I believe that all creatures on this earth have a purpose in life, and some animals purpose is to provide food for other animals, otherwise the circle of life would cease to work the way it should.

Does anyone else agree?

I recognize that some people are outrageously cruel and unfair to animals, and I believe they are corrupt and mislead. They are inhumanely taking atvantage of their dominion over those animals.

Ariel

"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If who I am is what I have and what I have is lost...then who am I?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\""

I strongly disagree. I do not subscribe to notions of dominion over animals. The 'circle of life' is a Disneyesque observation that does not apply to humanity unless in extreme and rare situations of true survival. So rejecting these behavioural patterns of cause and effect leaves us with what to guide our lives? The Government and its laws? God and his/hers/its? I don't have all the answers, but, you decide.

quote:

---

No, she loves dairy products. She won't touch anything that even remotely looks like meat. Has a hell of an attitude toward meat at 5...lol.

---

Always a contreversial topic,

My answer is eat more meat; especially that which is very rare.

Eat more meat; there will be more business; more farms; more animals breeding. Want to save some rare species? make the meat popular. You can bet that the natives will then do their upmost to preserve that species.

Being vegetarian in this day and age will cause the death of animals. If everyone ate vegetables, farms would change to arable crops and there would be less animals.

If the argument stems deeper and that is to consumerism or capitalism; then this is an ethical thing. But being scientific more than ethical; I suggest doing a little biology before referring to principles.

God gave us teeth to eat meat; or was it the devil tempting us to eat meat? of course its not as simple as this; but if you believe the latter one then if your sane...I know a house full of them

""No words""

I was actually fruit-and-nutarian for a few months and thoroughly enjoyed it...
There's a lot you can do food-wise without killing anything...
And fruit is so full of sugar... yumm!!!

I'm back to omniviriety now, but often think of going back, just so I'm not killing anything, but I get too lazy or want to stick with the crowd...

Maybe one day, space food sticks will corner the market!

Also, they talk about animal foods taking up to ten times as much area to create the same bulk of vegetable foods...

And, I have heard the story (you may of heard this one), about the guy who retreated to a cave and ate only nettles for some length of time, whereupon he got enough nourishment to survive for some length of time...

In regards to what to eat, if you're gonna do it, doing your homework helps, but also regular foods that our nourishing, and things like TVP (textured-vegetable-protein) and tofu are good... I used to use "Better Than Cream Cheese" as the cheese part to pizza, which worked okay... Just find as many recipes as you can... One recipe I created (to my knowledge) was for mashed mung bean... Basically, soak the dried beans overnight, boil them (in water, oil and a fair bit of salt to taste) until they're pretty much dry, then mash, and serve... Try it once, maybe... It goes well with lebanese bread too...

"There is no negative one..."

It's been quite a while since I was last here, thought I'd pop by to see how these threads are doing. I have to pass comment, I can see that I still have a very tall mountain to climb.

To Heyjme1: You say, "Being vegetarian in this day and age will cause the death of animals."

I really don't think that you thought that statement through properly? If we all turned vegetarian or vegan this would cause the deaths of animals to cease. Billions of animals are already murdered annually. Billions.

If you meant that this would cause animals to become extinct, then I simply disagree. Numbers would drastically decline, but never dwindle to zero. Even if numbers did zero out, would that be such a bad thing?

Economically a free market would change and evolve to accommodate the new demand for non-meat or non-animal derived products. Job would be lost and gained, such is a changing economy. I would argue that the long-term gains would far outweigh any losses, and a non-speciesist society would be massively better off in so many ways not just economically.

But you highlight an important point: Change will come from the individual up and it will not work any other way. The crimes of speciesism have to be recognised en masse in the minds of every right-thinking individual until it becomes the norm. We are so very far away from this happening that I don't mind telling you that it makes this Metal Giant's tear ducts go rusty from all the weeping, but I do believe that rational thinking will win out in the end.

Black Gold, there is a lot you can do food wise without killing anything, I'm glad you said that. I shall try your recipe, it really sounds simple and tasty! However, I'll refrain from scaring the omnivores with the nettle-eating tale though, I don't want them to think that's an option.

"Being vegetarian in this day and age will cause the death of animals."

I should of made this more clear. What I meant is the death of animals generally, that is the species-be this near extinction or not; reduce diversity of animals and other species suffer. I think you've been too warped by morality over commonsense of how things really work metal giant; don't take this as an insult. I'm not here to argue with people personally. I'm going to attack what you say; not you.

You use the phrase dominion over animals. This is reflective of a warped view. The point to me is clear: torturing animals or making them suffer whilst they are alive is bad. Killing for the purpose of eating is natural and supports our physical body and instinct. I could not argue if you say you choose to eat because you do not kill; but I disagree that this is a good thing.


You say if numbers did dwindle out would that be a bad thing? Yes. See what would happen if EVERYONE came vegetarian is this: non-meat products are arable, vegetable or fruit crops, etc. This means that farms that produce these crops would switch to these. Meaning livestock like cows, buffallo or whatever, will be unwanted. This would lead to their decline. We are omnivorous in nature; meaning we eat meat and vegetables. To neglect this and to say instead we just eat vegetables is okay on the face of it. But in practice it just doesn't work. I've spoke to local farmers, and its mostly arable land here, who know their countryside better than any moral expert. And they hunt. And they know, implicitly that if you kill too many of one species, or not enough of another you ruin the balance. thats understanding of nature.

The problem I have is that people do want to save animals, but by choosing to not eat them, they will reduce the amount of animals simply because of the way the world works. I like animals, and when I had to kill the first chicken, it hurt me to do it. But I know that this is how nature works; its how it is. We've got to get back to understanding our environment more; and I draw a distinct line between understanding the environment and being and environmentalist. For example, I was surprised to learn that birds actually follow motorway networks in the UK as a means to getting around.

I think eating eating meat is good and healthy, my problem is with the concerns of its well-being during its life. And I know that farmers care for their animals but its all kinds of health and safety rubbish or personal poverty that cause people to abuse animals because of their own problems, and therefore its the cause of this that should be dealt with.

Things are not easy in this arena, but choosing not to eat animals because it seems the right thing to do just isn't logical to me. I wish people would invest more of their money in buying free range chickens and eggs, or in eating free range organic beef and reward people who put care and effort into bringing meat that has been looked after well, or the government take more responsibility in rewarding these people. This is the solution for me; the other route would in my view actually create more commercialism and then even if it were just arable crops pesticides etc would still be used and the world would be so much duller as a result-morally correct only because things don't exist to be hurt. Its much the same as the person who told me they weren't going to have kids because of the nature of the world. It saddens me that people prefer to opt out rather than make better.

""No words""
[  Edited by heyjme1 at   ]

Heyjme1, it's great to talk with you, let's do some more!

"What I meant is the death of animals generally, that is the species-be this near extinction or not; reduce diversity of animals and other species suffer."

Nature will prevail with or without human intervention. When you reduce the diversity of animals in the wild, this will truly have an effect on the rest. This effect could definitely be perceived as a negative one, especially if you plucked one or two species from existence. Being forever the optimist, I believe that even still, in the bigger picture, nature would stand a great chance of recovery. Start dropping nukes and things get tough, yes. How natural is it to take a species of animal and isolate it from the wild and artificially breed it again and again? These animals that we are exploiting are not part of a natural order, they are no longer wild. Put these cows/pigs/sheep back into the wild and they wouldn't stand much of a chance and probably die of cluelessness. So these poor creatures are out of the loop, and I would like to see them all housed and taken care of by humans that wish to make good our errors (in an ideal world), or just get the final slaughter out of the way, but please not this perpetual artificial cycle of breeding/torture/murder.

"I think you've been too warped by morality over commonsense of how things really work metal giant; don't take this as an insult."

Ha ha, not taken as an insult at all, taken right on the chin, no problem. I understand why you think this. Really, I do! My little la-de-da scenario of everyone turning vegan, holding hands skipping naked across poppy fields to free all the poor animals is not how things really work. You're dead right Heyjme1. It's not how things really work at all, and it doesn't look like it will ever work like this in my lifetime either. But it is an opinion based on logical, rational thinking not popular acceptance of the norm. Commonsense spanks too much of common opinion to me and that is something I distrust a lot. Didn't we all think it okay to keep a nigger once upon a time? Isn't it common opinion that there's a God? Don't lots of people in the world think the war in Iraq is necessary? etc. etc.

"I'm not here to argue with people personally. I'm going to attack what you say; not you."

You're affording me with more respect than I deserve. Go on, take the gloves off, give me a right hiding. I pay good money for this treatment at Auntie Mo's House Of Ill Repute.

"You say if numbers did dwindle out would that be a bad thing? Yes."

I was being facetious. Like you, I wouldn't really want, or be happy, to see all the farmed animals extinct. Not one, obviously. But I would like to see an end to their captivity and exploitation at the hands of humans. I would love to see a wild cow doing what cows do in the wild. What do cows do in the wild by the way? Does anyone remember? Do I really have to ask a buffalo?

"We are omnivorous in nature; meaning we eat meat and vegetables".

Correction; We are omnivorous in nature; meaning we CAN eat meat and vegetables. Pertinent to this observation are the other traits that also occur in human and animal nature such as rape, theft, murder, cannibalism, and paedophilia. I mention this for possible future reference.

"But in practice it just doesn't work."

If you mean vegetarianism does not work, this is simply not true. I've been living like a vegetarian for 10 years exactly to this month (little yay) The only side effect has been fucking bastard tourettes syndrome.

If you mean that economically it does not work, then I would question your use of the past tense? When has it ever been tried? I can't think of any example of a vegetarian society yet? We cannot state that it doesn't work if it has never been put to the test. I hate to repeat myself, but I have to mention that approximately 20 vegetarians can live off the same area of land it takes to feed one single carnivorous human. Carnivorous human, not omnivorous. The economics of that is eye opening.

"I've spoke to local farmers - who know their countryside better than any moral expert."

Am I a moral expert? Cool! I think you're referring to me? My chin's hurting again.

"And they hunt. And they know, implicitly that if you kill too many of one species, or not enough of another you ruin the balance. that's understanding of nature."

Agreed. I understand why they do this and the mechanics of what is involved, but I disagree why they have to. But it's not wholly their fault that they do this, it's a consequence of why we demand it.The cycle of cause and effect is larger that the land management of farmers' property. Businesses are concerned not with the cause and effect of nature, but of the ebb and flow of supply and demand, a different type of C&E. They are removed from nature in this regard. And, let us not forget again, that we are referring to the management of wild animals, wild animals and their relationship to our human economies. These businesses are involved in a cycle of rocking their boats of commerce on the otherwise still lakes of nature. If the demand for animal products was not there (and in the 'real world' it is there, yes, it's a fact), then the supply would not be needed and the relatively small amount of creatures that are 'managed' would be kept to a minimum. Businesses would go through drastic change and evolution, nothing to be fearful of, and would emerge all the better for it. In such a fairytale economy popular opinion would reward businesses that are seen to build better fences or setting humane (non killing) traps rather than putting cheap bullets into the rabbits that might eat your carrot crop. A free market, like nature, has a way of self correcting.

But the change must start with us.

"The problem I have is that people do want to save animals, but by choosing to not eat them, they will reduce the amount of animals simply because of the way the world works."

It would reduce the amount of unnatural captive, isolated, animals and increase the population of wild, natural ones. A good thing I'm sure you will agree. Not likely to happen at this rate, I freely confess. But it will be the freedom of the individual to choose based on sound information and rational, logical thinking in a truly free market that will make the world a better place, not laws, not force, not common or fallible popular opinion. That's the way the world should work. Because the world doesn't work this way is why we have more problems than my 'little' issue of speciesism.

"I like animals, I really do"

Okay, acknowledged.

" and when I had to kill the first chicken, it hurt me to do it."

What? Crikey, I'm starting to abandon my hope you'll 'like' me!

"But I know that this is how nature works; its how it is."

In nature you will kill to survive, you will kill for territory and/or mating rights, you will kill in self defence or the defence of your family. In nature you will steal or scavenge, you will eat your own species - even your children if you have to. In nature you will do all these things and more. However, you are not in a survival situation, you do not have to eat meat (and the rest). Why is this the way you work? Why is this how it is? Why don't you go out raping, stealing, pillaging, murdering? I don't get it?

"My problem is not really with eating meat but with the concerns of its well-being during its life."

Don't support cruelty to animals next time you do the shopping then. However, you will find you'll be looking at a vegetarians or a vegans shopping basket if you truly believe this.

"And I know that farmers care for their animals"

Farmers care primarily for their businesses. This is understandable. It would also be forgivable too if they traded in products that did not have a fee will of their own.

"but its all kinds of health and safety rubbish or personal poverty that cause people to abuse animals because of their own problems, and therefore its the cause of this that should be dealt with."

The cause of this is; A) Common acceptance of speciesism, B) People's demand for animals to consume, and; C) Taxation and government interference to a free market. Lets deal with that.

"-choosing not to eat animals because it seems the right thing to do just isn't logical to me."

Makes absolutely perfectly clear rational and logical sense to me. It comes from the same rationale that I'm not also a murderer, rapist, cannibal etc.Thoughtlessly abusing sentient creatures by proxy when you don't have to just doesn't seem logical to me? But there's more people who think like you therefor I'm wrong.

"I wish people would invest more of their money in buying free range chickens and eggs, or in eating free range organic beef and reward people who put care and effort into bringing meat that has been looked after well"

I would support that sentiment. It would be a start. Little steps are what it takes rather than Metal Giant leaps.

"or the government take more responsibility in rewarding these people."

With who's money? Ours! Cut out those middle men. Don't get me started on the Government. Be rid of them and take responsibility for ourselves is what I say. (Save this for another thread!)

"even if it were just arable crops pesticides etc would still be used"

Not in a free market as I wouldn't buy from pesticide using farmers. Self correcting, just like nature.

"and the world would be so much duller as a result-morally correct only because things don't exist to be hurt."

Why is that dull? I think that wild, happy animals are how I would like to see them, not stuck in farms, circuses or zoos. That is a morally beautiful image, surely? I don't see any morality with people living in a state of hypocritical pseudo-nature, I see no beauty in exploited animals?

"It saddens me that people prefer to opt out rather than make better."

Having more children won't actually make things better unless your child has enormous influence on the populace. But I tend to side with you on the quitters mindset, however realistically they perceive things. If making things better is the aim then discussions like this will surely help (you are still reading this far right?)

"ld you what to put in your own body, or what to say and what to think?"

Nor I you. It's your business if you want to drink bleach, smoke drugs, shove a phone up your arse (then set to vibrate), pierce your eyelids, tattoo your kidneys or drink your own piss. In fact, I'll fight tooth and claw for you to be able to do it (especially the phone thing, it's great). However, if you try and fuck a child, eat a retard, or abuse an animal in any way, I shall have something to say about it and with my powers of persuasion (cue eerie sound effect) I will try to convince you of the errors and consequences of your ways.

Lastly,

"For example, I was surprised to learn that birds actually follow motorway networks in the UK as a means to getting around."

This explains that chaffinch in the Audi TT the other day on the M180. Thanks for that, I really had no idea!

Great discussion, Heyjme1, more please!

Metal Giant

Impressive response metal giant. I like your style of picking out points and developing them. I'm more of a wood than a trees person-my style id to look at the big picture then close it down. That's what I'll do at this juncture.

The earth came first. Not humans. So its logical to start with its role. I believe in two things. One nature controls man. Two man controls nature. They both coexist and I'll show why.

Nature operates thus. We have natural resources, technology and population. Nature, of which we are a part, will seek to address these. If the first two are poor, population will decline. Nature plants the seeds for this to be so via war, hunger, famine, disease, etc.

On the second note we have to discuss our role; where we are and how we do things in the future. But the first thing; where we are must be realistic. The upmost importance for me is for us to be happy in seeking understanding. That, I think, is the first base to proclaim our worth. What this means is that we must act in the way we see fit to proclaim this work to be on the way to achieve it. Basically realism first, idealism second.

Money makes the world go round. We cant change this yet. Its foolish trying. What we can do is work with it to promote ourselves. The problem we have is we are becoming ever seperate from the animal kingdom; that is we learn of it from textbooks; we don't learn of it through experience. This is a disaster if you want your morals of helping animals to work. I don't agree with vegetarianism. I agree with promoting a free economy that provides us with animals that can be reared by people. I know this works; I assume your English, being a TitTy driver because in the past farmers cared for their animals on the surface because they gave them an income to do things but deeper because they actually made a community themselves. This idea that animals run free in nature is fine; but you have to think bigger; if this is so we have to by default reduce our population; which means the death of humans, and I value human life foremost. Why? because we have the highest form of conciousness of all animals.

However, we have commercial interests. These commercial interests are interested in making money first and foremost. However, to make money the customers must be satisfied. We must therefore demand that all our produce is free range. This will never happen fully but the health benefits from those who can afford it are good enough reason.

You make it seem that animals are kept in captivity either for us to eat or for us to think that we are keeping them from being extinct. And thats right. Where I digress, vehemently though, is not to stop us eating or keeping animals from being extinct, but to change the method. We must actively encourage the free market to keep animals free and to charge us the price of doing it. think safari parks rather than zoos. The people who cannot afford this will be forced to eat the naff meat or be vegan, etc. but I can't see another way out of this; so so be it. Switching to not eating meat will, however you look at it, nature or otherwise, lower the amount of animals, because land is precious and populations are rising so where will they go? Mars? No, we should encourage people to eat both meat and vegetables and ask for them to seek quality food and pay the price because it benefits our health and the environment.

To me you change what is wrong within the scope of what is practical. Slow, progressive, rational thought, and commonsense will win over idealism that tries to make big leaps only to fall flat on its face.

On another note; why do vegetarians make vegetarian sausages and burgers? lol

Good discussion.

""No words""

can "veggies" still eat animal crackers?.... jp

""knowledge is my biggest influence" buju"

"I'm more of a wood than a trees person"

Okay then, I shall try a wood rather than tree approach and see how I go..

The Principle: If hegemony is the name of the game, as it is in nature, then he (or she) with the greatest will, the strongest arm, the richest bank account, the most tanks, the biggest guns and bombs is 'right' to oppress his inferiors, underdogs or enemies simply because he can and can get away with it. In your words "-- we have the highest form of conciousness of all animals" so that would mean it's 'right' to exploit them? Assuming this is "yes", then what of your superiors? What of those people and groups who have a higher form of consciousness than even you or I? The big bully, the lecherous boss, the armed police, the government, the invading space aliens or our future artificial intelligences? Does might make right? If yes, go out and swear at your kids, give your weakling neighbor the finger, do a spot of littering, use the street as your toilet, if you're strong and smart enough, why not go out stealing? or raping? or murdering? Start with easy targets first, babies and children, the elderly or the retarded and work your way up - what fun! Maybe if you're sly enough you'll join a gang who'll do all that for you? Go on! you'll get away with it too (barring those meddling kids) and you'll keep your power as long as you keep oppressing your inferiors, suppress their ideals, exploit their weaknesses. Things will be so much easier too if your inferiors accept the status quo and the reality of their world. If might is not right, then I suggest we respect and work with each other. Respect your wife, respect your neighbor, respect the birds, the trees, the animals. Celebrate, enjoy and utilise their differences. Do this as best you can, if they don't hurt you, you don't hurt them. Reward all those like you by being with them, trading with them, making your own collective rules based upon your shared ideals. Put your ideals and principles in gear before attempting to interact with reality. You will find civility among those with well chiselled ideals and chaos among those who do not.

The Consequences: If (big, massive, highly improbable, 'if' ) the world accepted my contention that speciesism is inherently unjust and should not be supported by humans that have "-- the highest form of conciousness of all animals", then yes, there will be consequences. The ebb and flow of populations will be one of them. Human animals, animals, insects, plants and the like will all surely be effected. But they are effected now, nothing has changed, such is evolution. If you thought it wrong that farmed livestock would go extinct then adopt an animal or support people who would ensure that the species lived on. Their extinction would be extremely unlikely, more so with a caring populous, but even extinction is part of evolution. Arable land is more efficient land. I repeat, approximately twenty vegetarians can be fed off the land it takes to feed one carnivore (or henceforth I shall refer to the equation "20V=1C" ). Heck, you can grow carrots in a window box - try keeping a cow in one! I've tried and it's really tricky! Not that you'd have to grow your own food. Any surge in demand for vegan/vegetarian food would easily be accommodated. Like today, only fools suffer because they wont eat properly.

---

That's my wood approach. I tried not to do this, but I must address some of the little trees too..

"This idea that animals run free in nature is fine; but you have to think bigger; if this is so we have to by default reduce our population"

No, I respectfully disagree and cannot see why this statement is true by default? Wild animals are already running free in nature. I am not suggesting that we set free into the wild all the creatures we have isolated from it. That really would be disastrous and quite unfair to them and the existing wild creatures. Small thinking indeed, I agree, but that's not what I suggested. I suggest that we leave well alone the existing wild animals and respect their existence like we expect our existence to be respected amongst ourselves. If attacked, or in desperate survival situations, then all is fair game, but not if not.

"The problem we have is we are becoming ever seperate from the animal kingdom; that is we learn of it from textbooks; we don't learn of it through experience. This is a disaster if you want your morals of helping animals to work."

I don't know what you think my morals are? "Helping animals to work"? I honestly don't understand what you mean? I also really do believe that leaving wild animals alone and reducing to as near zero as possible captive animals will bring humans closer to a truer meaning of nature and not separated from the animal kingdom as you rightly observe. The unnaturally kept, unnaturally common captive animals that people see now are testament to this very same separation of which you speak and not representative of nature in practice at all. It's right that wildlife should be wild and separated from the unnatural. So what if a child never sees a pig or a cow until he's lucky enough to see a happy one in the wild. It makes the experience more precious and valuable than witnessing any old animal destined for an inhumane slaughterhouse.

"We must actively encourage the free market to keep animals free and to charge us the price of doing it. think safari parks rather than zoos." Later you say " We must therefore demand that all our produce is free range."

So you've confused me a bit on this point? If you are suggesting your own ideal world where people insist on wild animal meat? If so, then I would support you as this opinion would be a step towards a greater more principled goal. But I would predict that if such a majority of consumers did think so highly of the animal's life and welfare at the supermarket checkout then they wouldn't be that far off from going vegetarian anyway and be happy to just leave the animals free in the first place?

"Money makes the world go round. We cant change this yet. Its foolish trying."

You say this as if I'm suggesting otherwise? Not even in the slightest. Quite the opposite. I thought I was clear, but if not, I'll say again that I think that a free market/free economy is vital. I would like to see the government itself replaced with one. Really! I prefer to change minds and opinions, like you, see...

"Switching to not eating meat will, however you look at it, nature or otherwise, lower the amount of animals, because land is precious and populations are rising so where will they go? Mars?"

I look at it like this; It will almost definitely and significantly lower captive animal numbers, I agree with you, it's obvious. But the land they took up (including the storage, 'processing' and transportation facilities) could be replaced with more efficient (20V=1C) arable land to feed our newly enlightened population. Perhaps it will simply be sold off to house us all? If it were my land, I like your idea of of opening a small safari park. No need to elope to Mars quite yet.

"I don't trust anyone other than myself to change this and I promote an individualist approach to change, from the ground up."

We are not dissimilar, plus, to your surprise(?) we agree where the ground is.

"Slow, progressive, rational thought, and commonsense will win over idealism that tries to make big leaps only to fall flat on its face."

Logic, rational thought and intelligent debate are indeed the playground where it all begins. We agree yet again. It's why I'm here. This is, to me, ground zero. You and all the people who can ever be bothered to read my output are the mind's I'd hope to persuade. I don't want to get in power and make laws to force you to bend to my will, I just want to find sense in the senseless and be a voice for the voiceless. I've made no bigger leap than explain myself and defend the logic of my position. If it falls flat on its face it's because it was pushed.

Metal Giant

P.S. I too see the irony in vegetarian sausages and vegetarian bacon.
P.P.S I was born in England, but I'm not a TitTy driver, the chaffinches on the M180 are. (the ones on the M16 drive Chryslers you'd be interested to know)
P.P.P.S. I've never eaten any Animal Crackers before but I did used to eat Jelly Babies, and children.

You've tried to seperate two things in your hegemony that are basically inseperable. Ethics exist naturally. That is, if I kill you, I know there is a chance you will kill me. However, this doesn't work when groups form due to security of power. And when groups form differences occur. No need to say why. The only need is to say that true power voices its own opinion.


Your consequences seem to be based on the fact of 20v = 1c. However, this misses my point. And my point is simple. I don't turn vegetarian because it kills animals. I don't see killing animals as a problem so long as they live a healthy reasonably long-lived life and are happy. I would rather afford an animal the chance of living to be killed than avoid this altogether. This, in turn, keeps the ecology running. I don't have a problem with vegatarians that don't eat meat because they do not like it.

But choosing to not eat meat because killing it is wrong is a moral argument. Its a false one too. We live in a capitalist society. But the way it works is that if the consumer is willing to pay; industries change to accomodate. Therefore, the point is to increase demand of quality of meat. This makes farms as rural as they can be. After all we ourselves are not rural but we accept it or change it; only a fool blames it on his past.

I still stick by the notion that you make things better rather than give up. The latter is what moral vegetarianism is in my view.

""No words""

Hey heyjme1,

Once again, I like and respect your answers and stance on my issues. I have to admit to being a little confused of the meaning of your first paragraph. I think I disagree with you? (if I think what you are saying is what you are saying, feel free to correct me).

"Ethics exist naturally. That is, if I -" *try to "- kill you, I know there is a chance you will kill me."

I think your use of the word 'ethics' in this context is in error as it is your understanding of chance and consequences that are dictating your decision to try to kill or not. What's needed is an example that would highlight the "why" you want to kill me, and the "is it right or wrong" to do so. Such an example would address what you mean by "ethics". Choices exist naturally, is this what you really meant?

If you are saying that choices based on hegemony are ethically "right" because they occur in nature, then I understand your point but disagree with it. I'd accept all your observations of group power but I would hold them up as examples of "bad ethics" and show you a big Nazi symbol as proof of this.

"However, this doesn't work when groups form due to security of power."

Forming groups to "secure power" leads to oppressing subordinates and the domination of other groups and individuals. You've highlighted a great example of paranoid hegemonistic reasoning. Scary stuff! I'm certain you don't advocate these ethics and are simply pointing out an observable fact of group mentality (or lack of).

"The only need is to say that true power voices its own opinion.

It does and it's the barbarian warmonger's battle-cry! This is hegemony, I think you'll agree. We don't want our group to be barbarians do we? We want to be a civilised society, yes?

"Your consequences seem to be based on the fact of 20v = 1c. However, this misses my point."

Thanks for the factual acknowledgment. Sorry I missed your point. go on..

"And my point is simple. I don't turn vegetarian because it kills animals."

Frankly, no it doesn't. Not eating animals, does not kill animals. Eating animals kills animals. You really do have to kill an animal to eat it. That's a solid gold fact. Am I a child murderer if I choose not to have a child and wear a condom, or am I a child murderer because I choose to actually kill children? Your simple point needs a rethink.

" I don't see killing animals as a problem so long as they live a healthy reasonably long-lived life and are happy."

It's nice that you are bothered about the quality of the life that you grant, I'll give you this much. Most people don't care either way. But the problem you should have with it is that if it's right for you to control life and extinguish it (by proxy or otherwise) then it's right for you to be so judged by your superiors. I don't think that you or anyone would appreciate the balance of your existence in the hands of someone else however well-meaning. Your life is yours. You own yourself. Mine is mine and theirs is theirs. Simple.

"I would rather afford an animal the chance of living to be killed than avoid this altogether."

Better to have lived and lost than never to have lived at all? I find I'm compelled to point out the hypocrisy of revering life to the point of existence over oblivion, and yet in the same breath dispatching life to oblivion once it's had a fair crack of the whip?

"This, in turn, keeps the ecology running."

It keeps the "economy" of that particular industry running. "Ecology" will still exist and thrive with or without that industry. As we've discussed before, farmed animal's existence is artificially separate from a natural ecology. We wont all shrivel up and die if we all choose not to support it.

"But choosing to not eat meat because killing it is wrong is a moral argument. Its a false one too."

Can I just add the little caveat that killing is wrong if you do not have to kill? -but yes, it is indeed a moral argument and a moral decision. Bad morality, bad ethics and bad choices do exist and I do not want to be someone that makes bad decisions, so please tell my why my argument is a false one? Why isn't killing wrong?

"We live in a capitalist society.But the way it works is that if the consumer is willing to pay; industries change to accomodate"

Yes we do, yes they do, yes it does, and I reiterate that that is a good thing. A free market respects an individual's freedom to choose and is self-governing. I get how it works, I embrace how it works, but I disagree with what people regard as 'property' for the trading thereof. I say, yet again, that we no longer see the slave trade as acceptable because it is morally and ethically wrong to be racist. For the same reasons I declare, yet again, that it is morally and ethically wrong to participate in speciesism.

"I still stick by the notion that you make things better rather than give up. The latter is what moral vegetarianism is in my view."

I too stick by your notion, it's why I'm here! What do you mean by "giving up"? I have only given up supporting a mindset and an industry that I feel is wrong. Besides, aren't you a moral omnivore? Have you given up on supporting cruel farming in preference for more humane farming? A decision I support by the way! It is preferable to the system we have now which we both see as erroneous.

And what's wrong with morality? I get the feeling that words like "morality" and "ethics" are distasteful to you?

MG

Hey metalgiant, I too respect your opinions and like them because your intent is good; but I still think you're stance could be better directed.

I wrote a reply but I got logged off it took me so long; I should have known better.

so lets start with a misunderstanding:

my quote:
"And my point is simple. I don't turn vegetarian because it kills animals."

Your reply:

Frankly, no it doesn't. Not eating animals, does not kill animals. Eating animals kills animals. You really do have to kill an animal to eat it. That's a solid gold fact. Am I a child murderer if I choose not to have a child and wear a condom, or am I a child murderer because I choose to actually kill children? Your simple point needs a rethink.

I don't mean vegetarians kill animals. I mean that I would not choose to be a vegetarian on the basis that killing animals is morally wrong.

Ethics:

I like ethics, but ethics is tied up with logic and evolution. My quote should have said that if I kill you; I know there are consequences from my actions. These things are programmed within our DNA. Aside from that I learned everything I needed to know about ethics in the playground. Many are ethical through fear of the repurcussions; hence my example. Some are unethical. Some are ethical due to the offset of power. The first two are obvious. The third one isn't quite so. When an individual has power, this power is offset by wanting to help. Just think of an example of when you're powerful; you're simultaneously happy! They have nothing to prove of themselves because nature gives them this anyway. However, as groups get bigger, problems arise because individuals have power where naturally they would not; or a power is chalenged. Thank God for democracy! If you watch chimps for a while you will see the correlation between man and animal. In fact, chimps are political.

Anway, thats aside from the argument; I'll come back to this at the end. Take cows.

Sun grows grass. Grass feeds cows. Cows fertilise soil. Soil grows grass. Grass feed cows. Take out cows and you have to artifcially affect the system, otherwise it deteriorates. Basically, no fertiliser, affects biodicersity of plants, trees. Affects worms, which bind the soil. Affects drainage. Affects the landscape.

you say 20 v = 1 c. I don't know how you arrive at this figure, please share. I'll assume its correct. Frankly, it doesn't matter if this were 200v = 1c. It misses my point. Ecosystems balance. Reduce larger animals and the things goes tits up.

Your point is to not eat animals because subsequently killing them is morally wrong. The intentions of this are sound and makes me happy to know people care; but it isn't the solution. I would say that most vegetarians I know converted because they saw the horrific lifestyle and killing of animals. And this would turn most humans vegetarian. I call this psyhchologically unfortunate because it misses the goalposts. Much like if you saw a victim of child abuse, you wouldn't necessarily not belive in discipline. Hence, my 'giving up' refers to the point that you don't solve the problem; you reject the problem, in much the same way as my previous analogy of not bringing up kids just because it is an ugly world. It misses hope.

Small farms are the ones in trouble. Thats where there is a high suicide rate. And the reason for this is small farms are still natural. they believe in natural practices; keeping animals outside, only using chemicals if necessary, etc. Sometimes out of heritage, sometimes economic, sometimes morally. Big frams make a profit because they follow the current trends. They do exactly what reform says and what the market demands to make a profit. If we change our views, by educating, to show how animals can be treated and how they are treated. How a little money can go a long way. How organic food is good. Then we do a better thing: we make the best out of a situation which isn't ideal. That is living. That is being moral. That is morality of the highest form; wanting to make better given understanding of nature and culture.

""No words""

"I too respect your opinions and like them because your intent is good; but I still think you're stance could be better directed."

I'm willing to learn, I'm eager to change my stance and improve my mind!

"so lets start with a misunderstanding:" (ok!) "I don't mean vegetarians kill animals. I mean that I would not choose to be a vegetarian on the basis that killing animals is morally wrong."

Ok, I sit corrected. Thanks for the clarification. But this does beg me to ask the question; Do your morals guide you at all? Assuming that you were to accept that killing animals is wrong if you don't have to (you don't accept that yet do you?) are you telling me that you'd still contribute to their perpetual deaths by continuing to eat them? Or are you saying that you just wouldn't care? If either is the case then our discussion is over as I can't argue with that kind of reasoning?

"I learned everything I needed to know about ethics in the playground"

Learned? Past tense? Nothing else to it than what you learned in the playground? I think what you go on to show is that you learned about power exchange, politics and hegemony. There's more to learn about an ethical life and the struggle to heave us all into a civilised world than the ideology of "might is right", because it isn't. I wonder if you and I are talking about the same thing when we use the word "Ethics"?

Wikipedia says this: " Ethics: [snip] a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group and covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility."

Hegemony could be construed as a functional ethical system, but as I am arguing, although it does exist and is a reality, it is not a preferred system among a sentient race of beings who's aim is to become civilised.

"Thank God for democracy!"

Thank who? (said the atheist) I feel that democracy is dangerously revered. It often times is abused and favours the powerful, it is easily influenced and majorities often agree to execute illogical or unethical decisions. I've always marvelled at how IQ's drop the more people you add to a group. We both agree that groups are problematic (I'd say "dangerous" but hey) and I still like your preference to influence and govern from the ground up.

"Take out cows and you have to artifcially affect the system, otherwise it deteriorates"

No, no that's not true. Vegetation (including grass) grows everywhere with or without human or bovine assistance. All your minerals and nourishments begin at the vegetable, nut, seed etc. level. It makes sense to get your dietary requirements as close to the source as possible. Interfere with this simple two-link chain by introducing a cow-link for example and you deprive yourself of nutrients as the cow will be using them by being a cow. Oooh ooh, I get to quote myself from another thread.." When you filter those nutrients through a cow, the cow will use up the majority of those nutrients being a cow (farting, shitting, laying down, getting up, running from butterflies and mooing) so you will have to dissipate more land for the cows growth (not yours), then you have to piss about shipping the cow to location B to get the poor fucker mercilessly murdered, then waste energy getting its corpse munched into little bits and all those little bits shipped to locations D though X to be wrapped up in pretty packages, then it will be hauled over to location Y where you will buy it and get back to location Z - your home." blah blah blah, I do go on and on, sorry. That was from the "Vegetarian or No?" thread, page 3.

"you say 20 v = 1 c. I don't know how you arrive at this figure, please share."

Well, I did say this was an approximate figure originally, I've just done a google search and found the same 'fact' on a load of different websites although it does seem that I might have been in error when I said 20 "vegetarians" when it should be "vegans", it looks to me like it's 12 vegetarians to the one carnivore, and there's some difference to whether it's a carnivore or just someone on a "meat based" diet. But I think you'll still agree that the essence of my point remains valid. You're very very right to question my sources though, I can't commend that enough! Although this was not the first link in my search I found this page raised even my metal eyebrows! http://www.southern.net/BURNINGFLAGS/VEGANVEGAN.html -- I encourage you to search your own facts.

" Frankly, it doesn't matter if this were 200v = 1c. It misses my point. Ecosystems balance. Reduce larger animals and the things goes tits up."

We don't want things to go tits up, I'm with you! Once again I feel I have to point out that farmed animals are not part of the natural ecosystem as they are isolated from it by us for our own aims. They are not wild. Ecosystems do balance out and ours has had to. So in the light of this I think your point is moot and the (rough) 20V=1C equation still stands.

"Your point is to not eat animals-" (when you don't have to!) "- because subsequently killing them is morally wrong."

Yep, that's a good basic understanding of one of my principles, yes.

"- most vegetarians I know converted because they saw the horrific lifestyle and killing of animals. And this would turn most humans vegetarian."

Well, I would have thought this to be so but I'm obviously in error as it seems that most people don't give a flying ferret's foreskin!

"I call this psyhchologically unfortunate because it misses the goalposts.Much like if you saw a victim of child abuse, you wouldn't necessarily not belive in discipline"

In your child abuse/discipline analogy: If by "goalpost" you mean the part that discipline plays in the rearing of a healthy child's mind, and "missing the goalpost" you mean seeing child abuse and interpreting it as discipline and then consequently going on to giving up all forms of discipline in protest (?!?) then I would agree with the error. I'm just having trouble translating this type of error to my supposed error?

So in my case, the "goalpost" I am missing is what? Is it the part that faming and killing animals for food plays in society?

"Hence, my 'giving up' refers to the point that you don't solve the problem; you reject the problem"

But when I and others like me effect the economy by actively giving up meat (and the rest) I argue that we are shooting right at the goal and not passively ignoring it. It is the best way to solve the problem I know as I'm against making laws and forcing people to bend to my will. In addition, I'm also here talking about where the goalposts really are, I think I'm very pro-active.

Regarding Big Farms v Little Farms: If animals are merely property or commodities, and while the market demands price over quality, then the little farmers would deserve to be out of business for being inefficient and not being sensitive to market trends. People would get the meat they deserve at the price they dictate.

BUT, animals are NOT property neither should they be regarded as commodities. The people, the little farms and the big farms are


"If we change our views, by educating, to show how animals can be treated and how they are treated" ...and... "Then we do a better thing: we make the best out of a situation which isn't ideal."

Yes, lets take this first step towards the right direction and effect the market at the source. You and I travel together on this issue, we both want to minimise pain and suffering from the 'ground level up'. We both recognise that the situation is not ideal. But I differ from you in that I want to keep on walking past this point (I see it as a realistic compromise) and eliminate our tyranny completely by ending the farming of animals leaving only wild animals as it should be. I would like to see a moral culture shift and all the positive effects that would have when the populous can see that speciesism is simply wrong in a civilised society.

MG