• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

Vegetarian? What is your rationale?


  • Please log in to reply
365 replies to this topic

Poll: Which diet best describes yours? (119 member(s) have cast votes)

Which diet best describes yours?

  1. Vegan (10 votes [8.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.62%

  2. Vegetarian (19 votes [16.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.38%

  3. Pescetarian (18 votes [15.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.52%

  4. Meat eater (59 votes [50.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.86%

  5. Other (10 votes [8.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.62%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Mark Hamalainen

  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 29 June 2005 - 12:40 AM


I realize there are a great many variations on vegetarianism, so I'll define the choices for this poll. If there is one that closely matches you but with a small difference, pick it and explain.

Vegan - don't use food products involving death of an animal or animal byproducts (dairy, eggs..)
Vegetarian - don't use food products involving death of an animal
Pescetarian - don't use food products involving death of an animal, except fish/shellfish
Meat eater - killing animals to eat or for materials is ok
Other - please describe

#2 Mark Hamalainen

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 29 June 2005 - 12:49 AM

I'm a Pescetarian, have been for over a year now. Would be a vegetarian except I put my health first and don't currently have enough time to make sure I'm eating properly without fish.

I find unnecessary killing of animals abhorrent, but I don't hold it against people who are not vegetarian since I wasn't always one either. However, it is still disconcerting to me when people talk about killing animals lightly or with pride. There isn't any honor or reason to take pride in such killings the way they are done today.

When people ask me why I am vegetarian, I often ask them if they would eat meat if they had to kill then animal personally. In my (biased) experience ~80% say no.

#3 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 June 2005 - 01:00 AM

I would eat meat if I had to kill the animal personally. I hunt.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 29 June 2005 - 01:02 AM

I don't have time to hunt. But I do kill animals for research, which may be kind of similar to eating for an immortalist.

#5 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 29 June 2005 - 01:11 AM

I do not believe there is one diet as in meat/no meat and composition of protein/carbs/fats that is most healthy for everyone. If you pick a diet based on intellectual condiderations and are not sensitive to your body you may be doing yourself a significant disservice.

I'm only talking about non-CR diets, CR is a whole nother issue, and one I'm not competent to speak to.

Edit: oh and my body feels much better eating beef--I'm not exaggerating, although it is not as obvious as when i first ate it again after not having any for a number of years, that was dramatic.

Edited by scottl, 29 June 2005 - 01:32 AM.


#6 Mark Hamalainen

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 29 June 2005 - 04:02 AM

I don't have time to hunt. But I do kill animals for research, which may be kind of similar to eating for an immortalist


Indeed it is similar. My health comes first though, just as I would kill in defense if necessary. Death by aging is definitely not good for my health...

If you pick a diet based on intellectual condiderations and are not sensitive to your body you may be doing yourself a significant disservice


Definitely, and that is why I still eat fish. I haven't noticed any ill effects, i.e. my body feels the same as it did before I became pescetarian. Growing up in rural Ontario, there wasn't much in the way of vegetarian food available, which is why I didn't start sooner. For example, their idea of a vegetarian sandwich is a turkey sandwich without the turkey, sometimes achieved by removing the turkey and throwing it out... Access to a greater variety of foods and information is making it easier to be a healthy vegetarian.

#7 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 29 June 2005 - 05:55 AM

First of all, I should state that nothing that I am going to say is about proving a point. These are my choices and I respect yours equally. I say this becaue being a vegetarian often offends meat eaters.

Second, the above definitions of a persons diet are just fucking labels that do not define a person. I just eat vegetables. Big deal! You eat meat. Big deal! It can all get a bit dirty when you start to push your moral beliefs onto others though. I dont mind a good constructive philophical argument though :)

I'm a vegetarian. I used to be vegan but changed because I was walking a fine line bewteen being ill and being healthy. If I went for a long run in the rain I would get ill. I now have animal by-products every now and then. An egg once a month (only if offered usually

Osiris I have another term for people to only eat fish. They are vegaquarians. :)

I am a scientist (just about to finish Ph.D) and made the choice years ago only to use human subjects). It is probably going to be an impossible task for me to continue in the field of gerontology without using animals but these are hurdles that I will deal with when I get there.

And by the way, is this a poll to find out who is vegetarian or a poll to justify that eating meat is ok. I noticed that the person who started this poll adds that eating meat for material is ok? I agree, but the way you defined a meat eater osiris, was to say it's ok. Are you feeling guilty for eating fish? of course its ok to eat meat. It all comes down to choice. It is a dangerous philosophical argument to have because people always feel like you are pointing the finger at them.

I have been a vegetarian for over 10 years now and people always ask why I do not eat meat. I just say that it is a choice that I made. They usually are not satisfied with the response and start with philosophical debates about humans having canine teeth to rip apart meat and all that stuff. So I ask them why they eat meat.

That question really stumps them. Not many people can answer without being on the back foot. I respect people's choices.

I certainly do not like telling them that the decision that I have made is based on moral beliefs. I avoid saying this at all cost, even though I just said it here.

Question for you elrond: why do you hunt?

Question for you John S: with your research, is it possible to use humans?

#8 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 29 June 2005 - 06:26 AM

Question for you John S: with your research, is it possible to use humans?

I'm in the last weeks of my degree. To obtain this degree I have made a bloodbath of substantial numbers of mice, which was not related to healing anyone and would have been completely unneccessary. I could have done a thesis on plants and obtained similarly valuable work experience. For that which I hope to do from now, well see for yourself.

Perhaps a variant of this project would be morally possible with terminally diseased patients, but legally and practically the difficulties would seem extremely formidable. From just sitting back and looking at the field, I would prefer to go for human patients with the stem stem cell medicine of 4 years (or more) in the future and a phd in front of my name, together with the experience this implies.

#9 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 29 June 2005 - 07:07 AM

It is often diffucult to use humans and in a lot of situations unethical. The same goes for animals. Everyone around me works with animals because it is less time consuming. I do oppose the use of animals in research I oppose the disrespectful manner in which they can be treated. I have had to pull a few people up in this regards.

Questions must be answered though. We must progress. The sacrifice that animals and humans makes for the beteer of humankind is indeed a selfless and generous one. I did however have to pay one of my subjects to buy a gym outfit for his training though :)

#10 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 29 June 2005 - 08:18 AM

Indeed, disrespectful attitudes to lab animals are far spread. I think it helps many researchers to cope with the pure evil that they do to them. By denying the animal's value, the perceived ethical transgression may become less. As long as it does not lead people to inflict additional, unnecessary suffering on the animal, I do not strongly oppose it, but merely stay out of it (most of the time). Even this has the potential for conflict.

#11 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 29 June 2005 - 10:53 AM

Man I'm a Meat Eater in my veins...
I can't see the poor animals dying, I won't kill animals but the disgusting bugs in my room, but I can't resist a rare beef, or spareribs, and I also love shrimps and sea food, and smoked Salmon etcetera, and I just love meat...

IF it will be possible to create food whom tastes the same and looks the same and smells the same, and we won't need to kill animals for it- I'll eat it rather than buy a dead animal...

I can't say this is my diet, my diet is very balanced. I eat a bit of everything I suppose. Meat is the main thing builds my meals, but I do eat vegetables, and some fruits, and cereals... and I do eat dairy (drink mostly...), eggs, etc.

Well now comments:

Elrond "

I hunt

Therefore I am
Harvest the land
Taking of the fallen lamb"... - - Metallica
hehe.

Graeme, would you mind please please please tell a young friend why are you not eating meat? [wis]
I just want to discuss it with you, I don't know how to response without the reasons.
However if there were not argues, we wouldn't have much to do here, get used to [tung] We are all different, and we love to talk about it.
We are humans.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 29 June 2005 - 11:40 AM.


#12 emerson

  • Guest
  • 332 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lansing, MI, USA

Posted 29 June 2005 - 11:14 AM

I'm a vegetarian. For some reason I've just never liked the taste of most meat, and even as a kid always drifted over to fill my plate with vegetables. Though it does 'somewhat' come down to a moral issue as well, simply because I don't see that much difference in the mental condition of humans and most other mammals. I get the same somewhat queasy feeling eating any mammal that I think many would if they were presented with a chimpanzee for dinner. Still, I'm a selfish bastard and gladly support animal research if it has even a chance of helping me out. I'm just lucky enough to have a body which seems naturally inclined to not mind going without meat.

#13 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 29 June 2005 - 12:01 PM

Well, I'm a meat eater, but I'm against it morally at some level. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite, but I'm a hypocrite about a lot of things (like advocating CR and being obese, or being a Christian and yet having so many doubts and disbeliefs), and it's something that I've been taking a hard look at this last couple months. A lot of changes have occurred, and many more are on the way.

I think I'll get to a point where I'll still eat animal byproducts (dairy, eggs), and I'll still eat fish twice a month, chicken once a month, and beef once a month. It's still somewhat hypocritical, but as much as I'm an idealist, I'm also a pragmatist. Whether I eat chicken once a month, or six times a week, it will make a big difference in how many chickens are getting slaughtered. But the difference between once a month and never is a mere drop in the bucket, so long as the rest of America is eating chicken with reckless abandon. Ditto for beef.

In the present, my main focus is on eliminating most of my beef. First of all, of the three (fish, chicken, beef), I consider cows to be closest to humans in degree of "consciousness", and hence I have the largest moral aversion to killing them. Second, I've heard that it takes 10-12 pounds' worth of feed to make one pound of beef. On the other hand, it only takes about 2-3 pounds to make one pound of chicken meat. So there's also just an issue of efficiency, one that appeals to a closet environmentalist like myself.

As for fish, I'm not as concerned about them, mainly because of the degree of evolutionary divergence, and I just don't put fish "consciousness" on anywhere near the same level that I put mammal "consciousness". My main reasons for not eating fish more than twice a month, and certainly not more than once a week, is for health reasons (mercury, etc.). Besides, eating fish twice a month, and chicken and beef once a month each, really boils down to eating meat once a week, which makes it easier to plan and track.

But like I said, that's a goal. Right now, I'm slowly cutting back, but I eat chicken and fish multiple times per week.

#14 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 29 June 2005 - 12:40 PM

First of all, of the three (fish, chicken, beef), I consider cows to be closest to humans in degree of "consciousness", and hence I have the largest moral aversion to killing them

That's the philosophy beyond the biggest concern of vegetarians, of why not eating meat.

At least you are aware.

[thumb]

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#15 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 29 June 2005 - 12:56 PM

First of all, of the three (fish, chicken, beef), I consider cows to be closest to humans in degree of "consciousness", and hence I have the largest moral aversion to killing them

That's the philosophy beyond the biggest concern of vegetarians, of why not eating meat.

At least you are aware.

That reminds me, I wanted to address something zoolander said:

Second, the above definitions of a persons diet are just fucking labels that do not define a person. I just eat vegetables. Big deal! You eat meat. Big deal! It can all get a bit dirty when you start to push your moral beliefs onto others though.


I almost totally disagree. If someone's a cannibal, is it just a label? If a person would kill, or allow to be killed, other human beings, just for their meat, would we just say "Big deal!"?

If someone allows himself to become detached from how the meat got on the plate, then I totally agree, it's just meat, or it's just vegetables. If someone only ate meat from animals that died naturally (but not because of a disease that would affect the meat. For example, road kill :)) ), as opposed to being slaughtered, then I'd agree.

But whether people want to think about it or not, their eating of meat is responsible for the animal's death. You might say "well, the animal was slaughtered, and they didn't do it or cause it, they could have passed it up at the store, so may as well not let it go to waste."

Well, not really. If a person doesn't eat the meat, then the store loses money on that meat, and they order less from the slaughterhouse the next week. One person has a small affect, but that's the same fucking logic used to excuse people who voted for Bush, and then when the body bags start coming home, they say "Well, even if I had voted for the other guy, Bush still would have won." Yeah, it's exactly that attitude that caused millions of people to vote for him, because they didn't think their vote could change the outcome. One person boycotting meat isn't going to save many animals' lives, maybe not even a single life, but 100 people boycotting in the same city, or a thousand, and now animals' lives are being saved.

Yeah, I eat meat. Big deal! It's just meat. But I know, I'm at least aware, that I'm adding to the slaughter, and I'm willing to take the moral responsibility for causing those deaths. If you can't take the moral responsibility, then you deserve to be labelled, and it's not just a "fucking label", it's a well-earned label for their ignorance.

As for people like Elrond, who hunt, he is at least aware of his moral responsibility. He chooses a different stance on the moral implications of killing an animal, and I respect him for that, because at least he's not ignoring the issue and saying "Big deal". He's facing the issue squarely, and he and I simply disagree on the moral outcome. But people who say "big deal, it's just meat", without considering how that meat got on their plate, are just being ignorant of the truth of the situation they cause. Eating meat isn't a problem, morally. It's how you get the meat that's the problem, and you're totally disregarding that reality.

#16 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 29 June 2005 - 02:16 PM

Jay,

I do not do well with carbs and thrive best on a high protein diet (and I have enough food issues e.g. allergies, etc that I don't do well with either whey or e.g. brown rice protein powder). Sooo either I eat a diet high in animal protein (which I feel best and thrive on), or I die sooner (barring breakthroughs of the sort discussed in various places throughout this board).

While I may have a rather unusual number of quirks, it is likely in my experience that there is a percentage of the population who is this way and thrives best on a diet higher in animal protein.

Similarly there are a number of vegetarians who's body would do better eating animal protein (to varying degrees). These people are compromising their health. (thus my comment about being ssensitive to one's body).

Please be aware, I am an animal lover and refused to participate in an experiement in medical school which involved animals.

Edit to be clear, there are plenty of people who do fine on a vegetarian diet, and they have the option. There are probably also people ill suited to high animal protein diets and who do best on vegetarian diets.

To pick the wrong diet for your body on moral grounds is to do violence to yourself.

#17 Mark Hamalainen

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 29 June 2005 - 03:33 PM

And by the way, is this a poll to find out who is vegetarian or a poll to justify that eating meat is ok. I noticed that the person who started this poll adds that eating meat for material is ok? I agree, but the way you defined a meat eater osiris, was to say it's ok. Are you feeling guilty for eating fish? of course its ok to eat meat. It all comes down to choice. It is a dangerous philosophical argument to have because people always feel like you are pointing the finger at them.


I don't see how it was designed that way... the options are statements from which you should pick the closest answer to you. Perhaps the wording could be different, it seems there are a number of people here who eat meat despite some moral qualms with the idea, however they still do eat it so it is 'ok' for them. I agree with jaydfox's assessment of fish being more acceptable to consume due to their lvl of consciousness. I am not guilty about eating fish, but I would rather not if/when it becomes possible for me.

The sacrifice that animals and humans makes for the beteer of humankind is indeed a selfless and generous one.


Quite the contrary, it is totally selfish. I want to live forever, animal experiments are necessary to accomplish that. I would never selflessly kill an animal for somebody else's sake, that would be much more morally despicable in my opinion. Not to say that I wouldn't selfishly kill an animal for somebody else's sake, I would do so if it were necessary to save or preserve the life of somebody I valued.

I almost totally disagree. If someone's a cannibal, is it just a label?

or a fucking label? Jaydfox you beat me to that one, just what I was thinking.

I do not do well with carbs and thrive best on a high protein diet (and I have enough food issues e.g. allergies, etc that I don't do well with either whey or e.g. brown rice protein powder). Sooo either I eat a diet high in animal protein (which I feel best and thrive on), or I die sooner (barring breakthroughs of the sort discussed in various places throughout this board).


My sister is allergic to most artificial food dyes and flavours, so she is in a similar situation. Your position is certainly valid. However, I've heard this excuse by many people without allergies and I imagine that for most of them they're just to lazy to look up information on proper vegetarian diets.

#18 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 29 June 2005 - 04:18 PM

why do you hunt?


to pit my wits against the animal's. I've hunted with a rifle in the past, but I intend to use a bow in the future. Most times I've hunted I have not been sucessful. I like the out doors, and truly being a part of nature during that time.

As a hunter I do not feel hypocritical about my willingness to eat meat but not my willingness to kill and butcher the animal which is an integral part of the equation.

Game meat is healthier than farm raised meat.

One animal is enough meat for me for an entire year.

It's a choice.

I usually ask vegatarians the following question "Why are you a vegatarian, because you like animals or because you hate plants?" :))

#19 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 29 June 2005 - 05:20 PM

I do not do well with carbs and thrive best on a high protein diet (and I have enough food issues e.g. allergies, etc that I don't do well with either whey or e.g. brown rice protein powder). Sooo either I eat a diet high in animal protein (which I feel best and thrive on), or I die sooner (barring breakthroughs of the sort discussed in various places throughout this board).

...

To pick the wrong diet for your body on moral grounds is to do violence to yourself.

And that's fine, you have a well-thought out and justifiable reason, beyond "I like meat". My contention is with people who eat meat because they like it, and hence cause (usually indirectly) the slaughter of animals, without a good reason. "Because I like meat" isn't a good answer to the philosophical question of slaughtering animals. "I don't believe animals have feelings" is a good reason, even though I disagree with it. Elrond's reasons are good reasons, even if I don't agree with them. "Because my health depends on meat" is a good reason, and I agree with that one. That's one of the reasons I don't see myself cutting all meat out of my diet.

But people eating meat because "I eat meat, you eat vegetables, can't we all just get along" is NOT a good reason to justify killing animals. The same logic could be extended to killing humans for food, and (I hope) we all agree that killing humans for food is NOT acceptable in the developed, and even in most of the developing world.

I don't see how it was designed that way... the options are statements from which you should pick the closest answer to you. Perhaps the wording could be different, it seems there are a number of people here who eat meat despite some moral qualms with the idea, however they still do eat it so it is 'ok' for them. I agree with jaydfox's assessment of fish being more acceptable to consume due to their lvl of consciousness. I am not guilty about eating fish, but I would rather not if/when it becomes possible for me.

Well, about the wording of the poll. I eat meat, but I do have moral qualms about it. So even though I picked the meat-eater option, I don't agree with how it's worded. I think this was a valid concern. Then again, I'm in a transitory stage in my diet, so perhaps that's why I'm conflicted in my answer.

#20 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 29 June 2005 - 05:22 PM

Oh, hehe, I just noticed the wording of the poll itself just says "Meat eater", it's the description in the first post that says "Meat eater - killing animals to eat or for materials is ok", and I'm conflicted about the wording that killing animals to eat is ok. Anyway, I've said my share, I'll shut up now.

#21 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 29 June 2005 - 10:33 PM

As a child of seven I remember being at a lake with a girl from a neighboring campsite. We both stood at a pond in the forest and looked at the tadpoles swimming in it. I was marvelling at the different phases of metamorphosis that they were undergoing, some with legs, some without, when she piped up that we should 'kill one' by crushing it between two rocks.

I remember this crystallized moment as if it happened this morning.

I asked her 'why', and she said "because" and that we would 'only kill one'. I tried fruitlessly to talk her out of it and spare the wiggling creature's life but for naught as she snuffed its spark out. I was horrified.. and obviously, somewhat traumatized. Be that as it may, it is obvious to me now that I have never been one with a stomach for killing although I have since grown to recognize the necessity of it.

I am against unnecessary suffering and cruelty. If an animal is raised and 'harvested' with no suffering, I am quite alright with using them for food or materials. I just don't want to be the one to push the button or pull the trigger, which has caused some disappointment in my pro-hunting family. I have to say though, if the purpose was survival, I would have little problem and have sufficient skills, taught under duress, to get the job done.

As many likely already know, in a recently reported study that followed over 500,000 people, fish was beneficial while chicken was neutral in terms of preventing colon cancer. Red meat eaters on the other hand had a significant increase in their prospects of contracting the disease.

#22 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 30 June 2005 - 01:19 AM

I do not know how to use the quote function so any assistance would be appreciated. For now I will try and answer questions directed at me.

Infy: I am a vegetarian for reasons that I believe are morally sound. I try my best to minimise the suffering that goes on around me. As a part of this I choose not to eat animals and in doing so hope to minimise the pain and suffering that animals experiance as a result. There are contradictions in this argument because I wear leather. I enjoy dressing in fetish with lots of leather and metal and this contradicts my beleifs. This goes back to what I said above "I try" my best to minimise suffering but in most situations, not hard enough. I do not push my beliefs onto people as these are my beliefs and my reality.

I really really hate having to answer that question becasue from my experiance people become so defensive and often aggressive with their responses. These are my choices.

Jaydfox: You consider cows to be closest to humans in degree of "Consciousness".

For me it about consciousness it about suffering. If an animal can feel it can suffer. By putting consciousness on a scale you set up a heirachy. A heirachy that results in, IMO, speciesism. What characetristics of a cows consciousness makes it less deserving of pain and suffering. In that case, what characetristic of a human gives us more right to a pain free existance when compared to any other sentient being? I can though understand where you are coming from though, it just seems to be a pretty loose argument for giving up cows first.

And you dont even rate the fish "conciousness" anywhere near that of a mammals "consciousness". Why?

IMO, setting up a heirachy in regards to consciousness does not do anything apart from give some people the right to judge what or who deserves more. In my eyes we are all equal.

Jaydfox: Re. labels and cannibals.....If someone's a cannibal is that just a label? Yes. A label. This does not define the person or the so-called "cannibal" You and most people would jusdge cannibals as morally wrong and I would also judge the eating of humans, as I do with animals, as morally wrong but I would not let that prevent me getting to know "the cannibal". However I would be a little more weary than usual to avoid getting eaten. My whole point about the "label" is that it does not define the person. So just because someone eats meat, I will not hold this against them. It is just one part of who they are. To hold that against them would be judgemental. Some people have heard that I am vegetarian and assume their stereotypical views of who I am as a "vegetarian". I am more than just a vegetarian.

Quote: (jaydfox) Yeah I eat meat. Big deal! It's just meat. But I know, I'm at least aware, that I'm adding to the slaughter, and I'm willing to take the moral responsibility for causing the deaths. If you can't take moral responsibility, then you deserve to be labelled, and it's not just a "fucking label", it's a well-earned label for your ignornace.

Then you speak about elrond Quote: (jaydfox) "as for people like Elrond, who hunt, he is at least aware of his moral responsibility. he chooses a different stance on the moral implication of killing an animal, and I respect him for that, because at least he's not ignoring the issue and saying "Big deal" "

So, on one hand you are saying that you are willing to take moral responsibility for causing the deaths and those who do no not take "Moral" responsibility deserve to be labelled for their ignornace.

First of all, why do you think you have the right to define what is morally responsibile? Secondly, who gave you the right to label other people as ignorant? What you beleive is morally right is your reality. This may not be others reality

So first you condemn people for not being what you define as "morally responsible" and believe you have the right to label someone as ignorant and then you go and respect elrond for taking a different stance on what is morally responsible!. Then why dont you respect other peoples different stances rather than labelling them as ignornat. Do you think elrond is ignornant?

I think you may have missed my whole point about labelling. It is just a label and does not define the person. IMO, if we could look past the labels society would be a better place to live in with less segregation of class and race.

scottl: The way you point out how some people do well on particular diets of high protein and so on....if the way I look at my choices for being a vegetarian. It a choice I made that makes me feel better about who I am.

Osiris: re. the wording of the poll....I agree the defenitions could have been worded differently but hey.....

Also, re. the sacrifice that animals make being a selfish one, I disagree because of my own beliefs in this situation. Once again, I am not saying I am right or that you are wrong I am just sharing my stance on the situation. I conduct my experiments to increase the quality of life for thos e around me. By taining and supplementing my aged subjects I have seen their quality of life increase dramatically. I want to help people increase their quality of life and this goes back to the reasons that I am vegetarian. I try my best to minimize the suffering and pain around me. Suffering is a part of life, I accept that, but there are also things you can do to minimise the pain.

Elrond, Thanks for answering my question regarding why do you hunt. Cheers matey :)

The philosphical debate about "is it ok to eat meat" is a long standing one. It has valid arguments on both sides.

IMO, it all comes down to choice. You cannot choose what is morally right or wrong in this situation for anyone but you can certyainly argue it. My beef, pun intended, with people being asked if they are meat eaters or vegetrians or whatever they do, is the judgement that comes with that question. It is no different than someone asking how old you are. What will someone get from knowing how old you are? Same goes for being a vego or meat eater, what can someone gain from knowing you are a meat eater or not. Not much actually. However in both situations, answers to these questions bring about philosphical discussions that help people understand the situation from another persons stand-point. If this is done with an open mind and people's views or options are not pushed to hard onto one another, then it is just another fanatastic opportunity to live and learn.

I apologise if offense was taken by any of my words. Offending people is not my intention

#23 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 30 June 2005 - 02:24 AM

As many likely already know, in a recently reported study that followed over 500,000 people, fish was beneficial while chicken was neutral in terms of preventing colon cancer.  Red meat eaters on the other hand had a significant increase in their prospects of contracting the disease.


For those of us that continue ue to eat beef (as I said, my body really seems to like/need it), eating hormone free, antibiotic free beef, taking folic acid, and I think calcium, and getting enough fiber to increase transit time (to minimize the time any bad stuff has in contact with your colon) are good ideas.

#24 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 30 June 2005 - 02:24 AM

I eat meat on a regular basis and my conscience does not bother me in the slightest. By far most of my meat consumption is poultry, though nothing makes my mouth water like a big juicy slab of steak from Arthur's in Hoboken. I also enjoy fish, though I try to buy farm raised to avoid contaminants.

I completely agree with the position that Kevin put forward. It is okay to use animals as a resource as long as they are treated humanely. The only exception to this would be animal experimentation where the possible pain or discomfort of labratory animals must be weighed against the potential benefit (and alleviation of suffering) for humankind.

#25 Mark Hamalainen

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 30 June 2005 - 02:40 AM

A heirachy that results in, IMO, speciesism...  In my eyes we are all equal.


If you were hungry and there was a human a cow and a fish nearby, which would you choose to kill and eat? Do you honestly believe the options equal? Degrees of consciousness can be inferred by objective measurements: duration of short term memory, pattern recognition, language capabilities, etc...

To hold that against them would be judgemental.


We judge, or determine the value, of things all the time, its fundamental to rational thought.

It is no different than someone asking how old you are.


Age is independent of choices and values, it cannot be influenced by the person. I would say it is fundamentally different.

IMO, denial of judgment (valuation) and instead assigning all living things as equal is denial of rational thought.

#26 Mark Hamalainen

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 564 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Francisco Bay Area
  • NO

Posted 30 June 2005 - 02:44 AM

It is okay to use animals as a resource as long as they are treated humanely.


Would it be OK to raise humans, treat them humanely, and then kill them painlessly at full growth for eating?

There is a difference between a human and an animal, as jaydfox has pointed out, but where do you draw the line. Should we eat dolphins? chimpanzees? What is your criteria for edible/not edible?

I choose to play it safe by eating only that which does not have a nervous system, making exceptions only for the sake of my health.

#27 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 30 June 2005 - 02:48 AM

All valid points

#28 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 30 June 2005 - 07:23 PM

Zoolander, I have to disagree about labels. If a person eats human flesh, I don't really have a problem with that. We all have our own tastes, right?

It's not the eating of the meat that I have a problem with, and in that respect, you're right, the label of "cannibal" isn't a good one to judge a person by.

However, how did that person get the human meat in the first place? Did some get killed in an accident, in which case there is no moral dilemma to worry about? From what I know of cannibal tribes, there is usually outright murder involved. So the label of cannibal has the implied connotation of murderer, either directly or indirectly. Taken in the context of "farming", cannibalism would involve raising humans as livestock, then killing them for food. The point isn't whether they had a cozy existence and a painless slaughter. The point is that they were killed, and hence consciousness (and its degree) matters.

That's why a person eating human flesh usually deserves a label. If a person kills another man in cold blood, he EARNS the label of murderer, and I'm going to use that label, at least until he's served his time, and only then assuming that the sentence was appropriate (e.g. no plea bargaining in exchange for testimony against someone else, no obstruction of justice, etc.).

A person who eats meat, and who by doing so willingly allows an animal to be slaughtered, DESERVES the "label" of meat-eater. Not because he or she eats meat, but because of all that is implied by the fact that they eat meat, including that they are complicit in the killing of animals. I further apply the label of meat-eater because most are complicit in the killing of animals without consideration, in ignorance, so they earn the title not only for their complicity, but for their ignorance. Much like I label people who don't vote, because most do so because of ignorance or apathy. Few people choose not to vote for well-thought out, rational, sound reasons.

As to Elrond, he's not ignorant of his choice, and that's why I can respect him. He doesn't eat meat in the false blissful ignorance of what goes on when animals are slaughtered. He is directly commiting the act, so I have no doubt he has faced the issue of what he's doing, and if he's still fine with it, then I'm fine with it. I don't agree with sport killings, but at least I can respect the fact that he's a meat eater. It's a bit of a nuance, so I apologize.

I have much to say about consciousness and pain and heirarchies, but rather than drag out the debate longer, I'll let Osiris's words speak for themselves, as they closely parallel how I feel.

#29 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 30 June 2005 - 07:50 PM

Graeme,

Well about not wanting them suffer, hehe do you think a hungry lion or a shark would spare you out? [tung] I don't think so, well we were born to eat everything, a proof is, without B12 that found mostly in meat we, um die, quickly...

I believe killing animals is only for:
1. food.
2. self defense.

After the animal is dead already, you can you it as much as possible. Leather for example, why not...

If you are stuck in some island with a preach and gotta put some close on hehe, then killing something for leather, I suppose to be ok [lol]

The difference between us and animals when it come to killing same species is, we are more intelligent and have morality and logic, comprehension abilities much greater than theirs etc.
I relate it to my egoism theory, survival.

By the way, I really think I should sit and write a whole book of my theory, I don't think it has ever been written, when it will have order and include scientific researches, you guys probably agree for a change.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#30 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 30 June 2005 - 08:13 PM

Zoolander: About the leather thing, I should point out that, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, leather might not be that bad. I don't have any evidence to support this, but I would suppose that more than enough leather should be available for your "fetish" as you called it, given the number of meat-eaters who allow cows to be killed. If the cow is going to be killed for someone else to eat, and if that leaves some surplus of leather, then you can consider yourself in the clear.

The problem would come if the demand for leather outpaced the demand for beef or beef tallow, in which case extra cows would be killed that otherwise wouldn't need to be. The problem is, in a free market, determining whether you're contributing to the killing is hard. As the demand for leather goes up, if the slaughtering of cows is paced to the rate of beef consumption, and if that rate is insufficient, then the price of leather goes up. If demand continues to rise, the increased price of leather will lead to more cows being raised and slaughtered, due to the economic incentive. The surplus of beef, if not eaten, will lead to reduced beef prices, until farmers decided there is too little incentive to continue their production levels, and fewer new cows are raised. There's a lot of feedback from both directions, so it's hard to say how much the beef-eaters and how much the leather-buyers are contributing to the slaughter. But my hunch is that beef-eaters are by for the ones to blame, so like I said, you're probably in the clear.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users