Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there is a chick in an unfertilized egg. I certainly haven't.
I'm talking about male chicks hatched from eggs. Since there is no way to only hatch eggs containing females, hatcheries must decide what to do with the male chicks that hatch. These chicks are "culled," killed after hatching.
I don't know about the specifics of how you obtained your chickens (were they purchased from hatcheries or obtained from rescue organizations?), what happens to them when they can no longer lay eggs, or any other specifics. I don't remember saying that it *does* do any harm when you eat their eggs. Why would I make a blanket statement like that?
What I did say is that the harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks. Commercial operations have to slaughter "spent" hens, often keep laying hens in inhumane conditions, and cull male chicks. Some small operations and hobby farmers may contribute to these practices in how they source their hens or deal with "spent" hens. Others may not, if they maintain their flock through hatching their own eggs (or getting chickens from someplace that does and doesn't cull), care for retired layers, and support any roosters for their lives.
The most common practices for hens that no longer lay among family farms seems to be either eating them, keeping them as pets, or sell/give them away. Some will give them away with the provision that they are not killed for food, but naturally there is no binding contract on that and I suspect most of them do get eaten. We eat ours as we do most of the roosters.
If that is the most common practice, it should help you understand why vegans don't consider family farming a harm-free practice. If you practice it yourself, that should answer your question as to what harm is done when you eat eggs.
I understand you may not see it as harm, but for a vegan, this would be considered harm.
That's why I kept it hypothetical and didn't mention the old hens. But if we kept the hens as pets until they died of a disease or at the hands of a predator, then it would still not be okay from I'm hearing here. Even if all the hens and roosters were raised humanely and allowed to die naturally it would be unethical and immoral to eat their eggs because somebody somewhere is mistreating a chicken.0 -
I won't speak for all vegans, but yes...it would be fine. If your friend had someone rigged up to kill the deer and rabbits then I think it would be cause for concern or action from vegans, but not what you described.
That made me laugh - someone camped out in a tree ready to shoot!
No, nobody rigged up to do any harm.
0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »So if one chooses to be vegan and not consume or purchase ANY animal products it does NO good. However if one decides to support humane killing of animals for food that does MORE good. Ahh, we have finally actually found something that is absolutely silly. If you want to help more animals then agree to be nicer to them and then slaughter them. Silliness.
BTW, I am arguing the fallacy in the argument not the food choices some wish to make. I focus solely on what I put on my plate and don't concern myself with what other people put on their plates.
If we are talking about changing meat production practices, then yes, absolutely those that choose the better method do more toward change than those that choose no meat. [/quote]
Rather than an either/or proposition, I would suggest both are a necessary critique of the system. Both cut off funding to the factory farming system, and both raise an important voice in fighting against an inhumane system. I am not vegan, but I have certainly been influenced by vegan philosophy and admire their discipline--just like I am not Catholic, but I admire the Franciscan brothers walking around town in their bare feet (or sandals in the winter) and admit it is a laudable standard, but one that I could never meet, and as a Lutheran feel no moral obligation to meet.
I think that what Need2 is getting at is, the industry would feel no obligation to address the concerns of a vegan, because they will never buy their product and are a "lost cause" from an economic perspective, while they will (slowly, grudgingly) respond to meat eaters who are concerned (and who vote with their dollars at places like Chipotle, that make an effort to source more humane meats).
[/quote]
But using this argument, one would never have a good reason to avoid *any* product, no matter what harm it does. You would have an obligation to instead support a "kinder" version of that product, even if it was something that one objects to overall.
Let's say there was a product that I was convinced caused harm to humans and there was no way to obtain this product without harming a human. It is something I can live without. I have two options. I can refuse to buy and it and use the money I would have spent on it to purchase other things. Or I can look for versions that still cause harm, but cause less.
If I choose the first option, I am (with others who make the same choice) creating a market for alternatives. Businesses like to make money, they're eventually going to sell things that people are buying (Ben and Jerry's just introduced non-vegan ice creams, Hampton Creek [a company that makes egg alternatives] recently announced they are bringing dozens of new products to Walmart and Target next year, Chipotle now has a tofu option). Vegans aren't a "lost cause" to the food industry, just a portion of it.
Instead of giving my money to a industry that will "slowly, grudgingly" address my concerns with how animals are treated, I can simply refuse to give them my money. Does this create immediate change? No. But -- as we can see from the industry response to non-vegans who are concerned with how animals are being treated today -- option two doesn't create quick change either.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there is a chick in an unfertilized egg. I certainly haven't.
I'm talking about male chicks hatched from eggs. Since there is no way to only hatch eggs containing females, hatcheries must decide what to do with the male chicks that hatch. These chicks are "culled," killed after hatching.
I don't know about the specifics of how you obtained your chickens (were they purchased from hatcheries or obtained from rescue organizations?), what happens to them when they can no longer lay eggs, or any other specifics. I don't remember saying that it *does* do any harm when you eat their eggs. Why would I make a blanket statement like that?
What I did say is that the harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks. Commercial operations have to slaughter "spent" hens, often keep laying hens in inhumane conditions, and cull male chicks. Some small operations and hobby farmers may contribute to these practices in how they source their hens or deal with "spent" hens. Others may not, if they maintain their flock through hatching their own eggs (or getting chickens from someplace that does and doesn't cull), care for retired layers, and support any roosters for their lives.
The most common practices for hens that no longer lay among family farms seems to be either eating them, keeping them as pets, or sell/give them away. Some will give them away with the provision that they are not killed for food, but naturally there is no binding contract on that and I suspect most of them do get eaten. We eat ours as we do most of the roosters.
If that is the most common practice, it should help you understand why vegans don't consider family farming a harm-free practice. If you practice it yourself, that should answer your question as to what harm is done when you eat eggs.
I understand you may not see it as harm, but for a vegan, this would be considered harm.
That's why I kept it hypothetical and didn't mention the old hens. But if we kept the hens as pets until they died of a disease or at the hands of a predator, then it would still not be okay from I'm hearing here. Even if all the hens and roosters were raised humanely and allowed to die naturally it would be unethical and immoral to eat their eggs because somebody somewhere is mistreating a chicken.
The lives of the hens would never be hypothetical to a vegan, so it is important to understand what is happening to "spent" hens when we are discussing whether or not harm is being done.
If you sourced hens from someone who didn't sell birds for meat or cull male chicks and kept the hens until they died of old age, what harm to do you think would be caused? You seem to be responding to an argument I haven't made (or maybe someone else made it and I just didn't see it?).
Can you let me know what argument you're responding to here? I didn't claim that eggs are unethical because "somebody somewhere is mistreating a chicken." I'm talking about specific, non-hypothetical instances of harm to hens, chicks, or roosters.0 -
I have often shared with my meat eating friends that it is in their and everyone's best interest to know where your meat comes from...and when I share that information, it is often eye opening for them. Would I prefer if they were a vegetarian or vegan? Yes, I would, but that is not my choice to make.
I've had extended family members nod and say, "Yeah. No. I don't wanna know where it comes from. It's too horrible." They go right on eating grocery store meat. I'm sure they're not in the minority. And I just have to drop the subject. <frustrating>
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there is a chick in an unfertilized egg. I certainly haven't.
I'm talking about male chicks hatched from eggs. Since there is no way to only hatch eggs containing females, hatcheries must decide what to do with the male chicks that hatch. These chicks are "culled," killed after hatching.
I don't know about the specifics of how you obtained your chickens (were they purchased from hatcheries or obtained from rescue organizations?), what happens to them when they can no longer lay eggs, or any other specifics. I don't remember saying that it *does* do any harm when you eat their eggs. Why would I make a blanket statement like that?
What I did say is that the harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks. Commercial operations have to slaughter "spent" hens, often keep laying hens in inhumane conditions, and cull male chicks. Some small operations and hobby farmers may contribute to these practices in how they source their hens or deal with "spent" hens. Others may not, if they maintain their flock through hatching their own eggs (or getting chickens from someplace that does and doesn't cull), care for retired layers, and support any roosters for their lives.
The most common practices for hens that no longer lay among family farms seems to be either eating them, keeping them as pets, or sell/give them away. Some will give them away with the provision that they are not killed for food, but naturally there is no binding contract on that and I suspect most of them do get eaten. We eat ours as we do most of the roosters.
If that is the most common practice, it should help you understand why vegans don't consider family farming a harm-free practice. If you practice it yourself, that should answer your question as to what harm is done when you eat eggs.
I understand you may not see it as harm, but for a vegan, this would be considered harm.
That's why I kept it hypothetical and didn't mention the old hens. But if we kept the hens as pets until they died of a disease or at the hands of a predator, then it would still not be okay from I'm hearing here. Even if all the hens and roosters were raised humanely and allowed to die naturally it would be unethical and immoral to eat their eggs because somebody somewhere is mistreating a chicken.
The lives of the hens would never be hypothetical to a vegan, so it is important to understand what is happening to "spent" hens when we are discussing whether or not harm is being done.
If you sourced hens from someone who didn't sell birds for meat or cull male chicks and kept the hens until they died of old age, what harm to do you think would be caused? You seem to be responding to an argument I haven't made (or maybe someone else made it and I just didn't see it?).
Can you let me know what argument you're responding to here? I didn't claim that eggs are unethical because "somebody somewhere is mistreating a chicken." I'm talking about specific, non-hypothetical instances of harm to hens, chicks, or roosters.
The point is that people keep posting that eating animal products is an ethical decision, but if eating them is ethical under some conditions then it's really just certain practices and not the consumption of the animal products that is unethical. If chickens are well treated why would eating their eggs be unethical, if a milk cow is treated well why would consuming the milk be unethical.
It's a point I tried to make way up in the thread but kept getting responses regarding factory farming practices.0 -
Yep, I hear ya. I try to come at it from the perspective that if they know where their food or meat comes from...they know what it is in and what isn't in it. I try to come from a health prospective and not from an animal rights perspective. It makes people less defensive and more willing to at least maybe learn. But you are right...sometimes not. I have a co-worker who knows he is not going to make any different choices than to pick up meat from the trays at the grocery store and doesn't want to know anything about it. However if he knows I am open to the conversation and not judgmental about it...maybe someday and he knows I am here.
This is smart & worthwhile & I will use it. Thanks. (good luck w/ the mice. My son's girlfriend had a mouse in her oven at a group house she used to live in. The nerve - living in the oven!? Shows you how much the people were cooking in that house...)
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »So if one chooses to be vegan and not consume or purchase ANY animal products it does NO good. However if one decides to support humane killing of animals for food that does MORE good. Ahh, we have finally actually found something that is absolutely silly. If you want to help more animals then agree to be nicer to them and then slaughter them. Silliness.
BTW, I am arguing the fallacy in the argument not the food choices some wish to make. I focus solely on what I put on my plate and don't concern myself with what other people put on their plates.
If we are talking about changing meat production practices, then yes, absolutely those that choose the better method do more toward change than those that choose no meat.
Rather than an either/or proposition, I would suggest both are a necessary critique of the system. Both cut off funding to the factory farming system, and both raise an important voice in fighting against an inhumane system. I am not vegan, but I have certainly been influenced by vegan philosophy and admire their discipline--just like I am not Catholic, but I admire the Franciscan brothers walking around town in their bare feet (or sandals in the winter) and admit it is a laudable standard, but one that I could never meet, and as a Lutheran feel no moral obligation to meet.
I think that what Need2 is getting at is, the industry would feel no obligation to address the concerns of a vegan, because they will never buy their product and are a "lost cause" from an economic perspective, while they will (slowly, grudgingly) respond to meat eaters who are concerned (and who vote with their dollars at places like Chipotle, that make an effort to source more humane meats).
But using this argument, one would never have a good reason to avoid *any* product, no matter what harm it does. You would have an obligation to instead support a "kinder" version of that product, even if it was something that one objects to overall.
Let's say there was a product that I was convinced caused harm to humans and there was no way to obtain this product without harming a human. It is something I can live without. I have two options. I can refuse to buy and it and use the money I would have spent on it to purchase other things. Or I can look for versions that still cause harm, but cause less.
If I choose the first option, I am (with others who make the same choice) creating a market for alternatives. Businesses like to make money, they're eventually going to sell things that people are buying (Ben and Jerry's just introduced non-vegan ice creams, Hampton Creek [a company that makes egg alternatives] recently announced they are bringing dozens of new products to Walmart and Target next year, Chipotle now has a tofu option). Vegans aren't a "lost cause" to the food industry, just a portion of it.
Instead of giving my money to a industry that will "slowly, grudgingly" address my concerns with how animals are treated, I can simply refuse to give them my money. Does this create immediate change? No. But -- as we can see from the industry response to non-vegans who are concerned with how animals are being treated today -- option two doesn't create quick change either.
Why does anyone need a good reason to avoid a product? If you don't want to eat something for any reason, then don't.
It's the suggestion that it's immoral or unethical for anyone to consume animal products regardless of how the food was sourced because most animal food products are not sourced ethically that doesn't make sense to me.
While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. Saying I have the blood of roosters on my hands when I eat an egg from my chickens is something I don't understand.0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »I won't speak for all vegans, but yes...it would be fine. If your friend had someone rigged up to kill the deer and rabbits then I think it would be cause for concern or action from vegans, but not what you described.
That made me laugh - someone camped out in a tree ready to shoot! No, nobody rigged up to do any harm.
I have a slightly related dilemma with one of my roommates. She is an omnivore. We are currently have an issue with mice in our apartment. I have done all these things to naturally get rid of the mice. I basically want to make the apartment not feel homey to the mice so they will leave and want to live somewhere else. My roommate just wants them gone any which way. So, I keep doing the putting peppermint down and plugging holes with copper, etc. My roommate is putting down traps. I can't participate in the process that ends up with a dead mouse, but I don't have the ability to make that choice for her.vivmom2014 wrote: »
I've had extended family members nod and say, "Yeah. No. I don't wanna know where it comes from. It's too horrible." They go right on eating grocery store meat. I'm sure they're not in the minority. And I just have to drop the subject. <frustrating>
Yep, I hear ya. I try to come at it from the perspective that if they know where their food or meat comes from...they know what it is in and what isn't in it. I try to come from a health prospective and not from an animal rights perspective. It makes people less defensive and more willing to at least maybe learn. But you are right...sometimes not. I have a co-worker who knows he is not going to make any different choices than to pick up meat from the trays at the grocery store and doesn't want to know anything about it. However if he knows I am open to the conversation and not judgmental about it...maybe someday and he knows I am here.
Just a question. Do these people you are trying to educate ask for your input or is it unsolicited? I prefer more of an eyes on your own plate approach unless asked.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Just a question. Do these people you are trying to educate ask for your input or is it unsolicited? I prefer more of an eyes on your own plate approach unless asked.
Asked for. Well, not asked for per se, but I don't bring it up. It kind of comes up under the realm of them commenting on my being vegetarian, or mentioning that they know grocery store meat is "bad" but, hey, whatever.
0 -
OK you edited so it changes my answer lol0
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Why do people think it is their place to try to convert everybody? I mean I know you are passionate but wouldn't you get annoyed if these people were trying to convert you? If someone was giving me unsolicited advise I would be less likely to change.
I'm not sure if you responded to my answering "unsolicited" before I realized I actually meant "solicited."
Frankly I don't like talking about my diet. I don't want the spotlight, I'm not learned enough to discourse on factory farming practices other than knowing they're atrocious.
I'm not converting anyone, lol.
0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Just a question. Do these people you are trying to educate ask for your input or is it unsolicited? I prefer more of an eyes on your own plate approach unless asked.
Asked for. Well, not asked for per se, but I don't bring it up. It kind of comes up under the realm of them commenting on my being vegetarian, or mentioning that they know grocery store meat is "bad" but, hey, whatever.
I often simply say things like that so people stop preaching. I'm pretty sure I've feigned allegiance to, or interest in, at least three different religions, no religion, three different political parties, multiple denominations, and an unwavering love of organicly grown tomatoes just so I can hear more about the weather . . . or at least keep the peace . . . so wow! It's really gorgeous outside today! Anyone want another drink?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yes that changes it. If they mention it you can comment all you like
I just have a vegan friend who harasses me all the time about eating animal products and it drives me up the wall because I have a medical condition which makes going vegan or even vegetarian almost impossible. 0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Why do people think it is their place to try to convert everybody? I mean I know you are passionate but wouldn't you get annoyed if these people were trying to convert you? If someone was giving me unsolicited advise I would be less likely to change.
I'm not sure if you responded to my answering "unsolicited" before I realized I actually meant "solicited."
Frankly I don't like talking about my diet. I don't want the spotlight, I'm not learned enough to discourse on factory farming practices other than knowing they're atrocious.
I'm not converting anyone, lol.
Yes it was in response to unsolicited. Now that you say they make comments it is fine0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Why do people think it is their place to try to convert everybody? I mean I know you are passionate but wouldn't you get annoyed if these people were trying to convert you? If someone was giving me unsolicited advise I would be less likely to change.
I'm not sure if you responded to my answering "unsolicited" before I realized I actually meant "solicited."
Frankly I don't like talking about my diet. I don't want the spotlight, I'm not learned enough to discourse on factory farming practices other than knowing they're atrocious.
I'm not converting anyone, lol.
Yes it was in response to unsolicited. Now that you say they make comments it is fine
Sorry - I can't believe I wrote "unsolicited" so fast. I'm an English major. Sheesh. I really did mean "solicited." And for the record, I would find it insufferable to have someone harass me about eating animal products.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
It's the suggestion that it's immoral or unethical for anyone to consume animal products regardless of how the food was sourced because most animal food products are not sourced ethically that doesn't make sense to me.
While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. Saying I have the blood of roosters on my hands when I eat an egg from my chickens is something I don't understand.
I don't understand how that doesn't make sense as it relates to vegans. If someone is a vegetarian or a vegan they believe it is immoral or unethical to cause an animal to lose its life for our consumption. So I believe it is unethical to consume the flesh of other animals. It doesn't matter how well the animal was treated prior to slaughter if the end result is slaughter....that is not an ethical food choice for me. Why does that not make sense???? Dead is dead.
As for the egg thing, it's been explained about the male chicks a few times over. When you buy a hen, what do you think happened to the male chicks that were born at were born at the same time? They died. One way or another they died...unless you can tell me for sure that they didn't and how you know this.
Yes, we agree. One way or another all animals die.
The first paragraph has nothing to do with what I said doesn't make sense to me.0 -
For the ethical vegan with a reverence for life, it seems the quality of the creature's life, the duration, and the manner of death are all important. I imagine any human intervention is seen as a disservice.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
It's the suggestion that it's immoral or unethical for anyone to consume animal products regardless of how the food was sourced because most animal food products are not sourced ethically that doesn't make sense to me.
While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. Saying I have the blood of roosters on my hands when I eat an egg from my chickens is something I don't understand.
I don't understand how that doesn't make sense as it relates to vegans. If someone is a vegetarian or a vegan they believe it is immoral or unethical to cause an animal to lose its life for our consumption. So I believe it is unethical to consume the flesh of other animals. It doesn't matter how well the animal was treated prior to slaughter if the end result is slaughter....that is not an ethical food choice for me. Why does that not make sense???? Dead is dead.
As for the egg thing, it's been explained about the male chicks a few times over. When you buy a hen, what do you think happened to the male chicks that were born at were born at the same time? They died. One way or another they died...unless you can tell me for sure that they didn't and how you know this.
Yes, we agree. One way or another all animals die.
The first paragraph has nothing to do with what I said doesn't make sense to me.
How so? You said it doesn't make sense the suggestion from vegans that it is immoral or unethical for one to consume animal products. You may not agree with the sentiment, but you really can't see how that makes sense for someone who defines as vegan??? Seriously?
And we don't agree. If an animal dies in order to fill my belly instead of it's own natural existence and life then it is not an ethical and moral food choice for me personally.
Because I clarified that I was not talking about eating the animals themselves. (with this sentence since you seem to have missed it above: "While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. ")
Roosters and hens aren't dying to fill your belly. And may not die by human hand. Yet their blood is still on all our hands. Nope, I do not understand that position at all.
And just think of the destruction and death if we all stopped eating eggs. Chickens can't survive without humans so they'd pretty much become extinct. That totally sounds more moral than my happy flock keeping us supplied with eggs.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Interesting new article today
How Much Meat Does Your Brain Need?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S12a.html?WT.mc_id=FBK_OUTLOOK_COGNITIVEHEALTH
"So the key question becomes how much meat should a cognitive-health-conscious person eat. Too little can delay development and cognition. But too much, particularly if it is low quality and mass produced, is associated with other health concerns, such as heart disease and cancer, along with memory problems later in life. A person's life stage matters: pregnant women need more iron, as do babies and children. Genetics also play a part, but we don't yet know all the particulars. All these caveats make for a murky takeaway."0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
It's the suggestion that it's immoral or unethical for anyone to consume animal products regardless of how the food was sourced because most animal food products are not sourced ethically that doesn't make sense to me.
While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. Saying I have the blood of roosters on my hands when I eat an egg from my chickens is something I don't understand.
I don't understand how that doesn't make sense as it relates to vegans. If someone is a vegetarian or a vegan they believe it is immoral or unethical to cause an animal to lose its life for our consumption. So I believe it is unethical to consume the flesh of other animals. It doesn't matter how well the animal was treated prior to slaughter if the end result is slaughter....that is not an ethical food choice for me. Why does that not make sense???? Dead is dead.
As for the egg thing, it's been explained about the male chicks a few times over. When you buy a hen, what do you think happened to the male chicks that were born at were born at the same time? They died. One way or another they died...unless you can tell me for sure that they didn't and how you know this.
Yes, we agree. One way or another all animals die.
The first paragraph has nothing to do with what I said doesn't make sense to me.
How so? You said it doesn't make sense the suggestion from vegans that it is immoral or unethical for one to consume animal products. You may not agree with the sentiment, but you really can't see how that makes sense for someone who defines as vegan??? Seriously?
And we don't agree. If an animal dies in order to fill my belly instead of it's own natural existence and life then it is not an ethical and moral food choice for me personally.
Because I clarified that I was not talking about eating the animals themselves. (with this sentence since you seem to have missed it above: "While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. ")
Roosters and hens aren't dying to fill your belly. And may not die by human hand. Yet their blood is still on all our hands. Nope, I do not understand that position at all.
And just think of the destruction and death if we all stopped eating eggs. Chickens can't survive without humans so they'd pretty much become extinct. That totally sounds more moral than my happy flock keeping us supplied with eggs.
Oh no...feral chickens are a thing, as are feral horses, feral cats and feral swine. They do quite well for themselves. We would just lose breeds and species. Some fascinating reading from Modern Farmer: http://modernfarmer.com/2015/04/the-mystery-of-kauais-thousands-of-feral-chickens/
And here is one from New Orleans: http://www.nola.com/pets/index.ssf/2011/04/feral_chickens_have_proliferat.html0 -
By this standard, it is okay to beat one's children simply because they would not exist without us.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
It's the suggestion that it's immoral or unethical for anyone to consume animal products regardless of how the food was sourced because most animal food products are not sourced ethically that doesn't make sense to me.
While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. Saying I have the blood of roosters on my hands when I eat an egg from my chickens is something I don't understand.
I don't understand how that doesn't make sense as it relates to vegans. If someone is a vegetarian or a vegan they believe it is immoral or unethical to cause an animal to lose its life for our consumption. So I believe it is unethical to consume the flesh of other animals. It doesn't matter how well the animal was treated prior to slaughter if the end result is slaughter....that is not an ethical food choice for me. Why does that not make sense???? Dead is dead.
As for the egg thing, it's been explained about the male chicks a few times over. When you buy a hen, what do you think happened to the male chicks that were born at were born at the same time? They died. One way or another they died...unless you can tell me for sure that they didn't and how you know this.
Yes, we agree. One way or another all animals die.
The first paragraph has nothing to do with what I said doesn't make sense to me.
How so? You said it doesn't make sense the suggestion from vegans that it is immoral or unethical for one to consume animal products. You may not agree with the sentiment, but you really can't see how that makes sense for someone who defines as vegan??? Seriously?
And we don't agree. If an animal dies in order to fill my belly instead of it's own natural existence and life then it is not an ethical and moral food choice for me personally.
Because I clarified that I was not talking about eating the animals themselves. (with this sentence since you seem to have missed it above: "While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. ")
Roosters and hens aren't dying to fill your belly. And may not die by human hand. Yet their blood is still on all our hands. Nope, I do not understand that position at all.
And just think of the destruction and death if we all stopped eating eggs. Chickens can't survive without humans so they'd pretty much become extinct. That totally sounds more moral than my happy flock keeping us supplied with eggs.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there is a chick in an unfertilized egg. I certainly haven't.
I'm talking about male chicks hatched from eggs. Since there is no way to only hatch eggs containing females, hatcheries must decide what to do with the male chicks that hatch. These chicks are "culled," killed after hatching.
I don't know about the specifics of how you obtained your chickens (were they purchased from hatcheries or obtained from rescue organizations?), what happens to them when they can no longer lay eggs, or any other specifics. I don't remember saying that it *does* do any harm when you eat their eggs. Why would I make a blanket statement like that?
What I did say is that the harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks. Commercial operations have to slaughter "spent" hens, often keep laying hens in inhumane conditions, and cull male chicks. Some small operations and hobby farmers may contribute to these practices in how they source their hens or deal with "spent" hens. Others may not, if they maintain their flock through hatching their own eggs (or getting chickens from someplace that does and doesn't cull), care for retired layers, and support any roosters for their lives.
The most common practices for hens that no longer lay among family farms seems to be either eating them, keeping them as pets, or sell/give them away. Some will give them away with the provision that they are not killed for food, but naturally there is no binding contract on that and I suspect most of them do get eaten. We eat ours as we do most of the roosters.
If that is the most common practice, it should help you understand why vegans don't consider family farming a harm-free practice. If you practice it yourself, that should answer your question as to what harm is done when you eat eggs.
I understand you may not see it as harm, but for a vegan, this would be considered harm.
That's why I kept it hypothetical and didn't mention the old hens. But if we kept the hens as pets until they died of a disease or at the hands of a predator, then it would still not be okay from I'm hearing here. Even if all the hens and roosters were raised humanely and allowed to die naturally it would be unethical and immoral to eat their eggs because somebody somewhere is mistreating a chicken.
The lives of the hens would never be hypothetical to a vegan, so it is important to understand what is happening to "spent" hens when we are discussing whether or not harm is being done.
If you sourced hens from someone who didn't sell birds for meat or cull male chicks and kept the hens until they died of old age, what harm to do you think would be caused? You seem to be responding to an argument I haven't made (or maybe someone else made it and I just didn't see it?).
Can you let me know what argument you're responding to here? I didn't claim that eggs are unethical because "somebody somewhere is mistreating a chicken." I'm talking about specific, non-hypothetical instances of harm to hens, chicks, or roosters.
The point is that people keep posting that eating animal products is an ethical decision, but if eating them is ethical under some conditions then it's really just certain practices and not the consumption of the animal products that is unethical. If chickens are well treated why would eating their eggs be unethical, if a milk cow is treated well why would consuming the milk be unethical.
It's a point I tried to make way up in the thread but kept getting responses regarding factory farming practices.
*Eating* animal products isn't an ethical decision, in my opinion. I'm not sure who you are responding to who said that, so I'll save space for them to respond.
Avoiding animal exploitation *is* an ethical decision. So eating an egg is a ethically neutral act. Treating a chicken as if they are simply a means to an end, a way to get an egg that can be slaughtered when it can no longer meet a human desire, that's what I object to. Due to economic reasons, there are very few ways to obtain eggs that don't support treating chickens in a way that I object to.
If chickens were treated as if they were more than means to an end, veganism (as it relates to chickens) wouldn't be an issue. If cows were treated as if they were more than means to an end, veganism (as it relates to cows) wouldn't be an issue. Veganism is a response to animal exploitation. This exploitation exists even outside of factory farming (as you sharing the common practice of small farms -- and your practice -- of killing "spent" hens made clear. Animal exploitation goes beyond factory farming. Even small farms and hobbyists support hatcheries that cull male chicks. Even small farms and hobbyists slaughter animals. Veganism isn't just a response to factory farming.
If you're used to thinking of chickens as a way to get eggs (or chicken meat) or of cows as a way to get milk (or beef), this is probably an weird way of thinking of it. It may seem like animal mistreatment is limited to what happens on factory farms. But to a vegan, even "kinder" methods of getting animal products to the table create more suffering than we wish to support.
Eating the egg itself? That's not what is objected to. But that act doesn't exist in a vacuum. We're looking at what is supported by that decision, what other acts become economically or logistically necessary when many people in society wish to eat eggs.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »So if one chooses to be vegan and not consume or purchase ANY animal products it does NO good. However if one decides to support humane killing of animals for food that does MORE good. Ahh, we have finally actually found something that is absolutely silly. If you want to help more animals then agree to be nicer to them and then slaughter them. Silliness.
BTW, I am arguing the fallacy in the argument not the food choices some wish to make. I focus solely on what I put on my plate and don't concern myself with what other people put on their plates.
If we are talking about changing meat production practices, then yes, absolutely those that choose the better method do more toward change than those that choose no meat.
Rather than an either/or proposition, I would suggest both are a necessary critique of the system. Both cut off funding to the factory farming system, and both raise an important voice in fighting against an inhumane system. I am not vegan, but I have certainly been influenced by vegan philosophy and admire their discipline--just like I am not Catholic, but I admire the Franciscan brothers walking around town in their bare feet (or sandals in the winter) and admit it is a laudable standard, but one that I could never meet, and as a Lutheran feel no moral obligation to meet.
I think that what Need2 is getting at is, the industry would feel no obligation to address the concerns of a vegan, because they will never buy their product and are a "lost cause" from an economic perspective, while they will (slowly, grudgingly) respond to meat eaters who are concerned (and who vote with their dollars at places like Chipotle, that make an effort to source more humane meats).
But using this argument, one would never have a good reason to avoid *any* product, no matter what harm it does. You would have an obligation to instead support a "kinder" version of that product, even if it was something that one objects to overall.
Let's say there was a product that I was convinced caused harm to humans and there was no way to obtain this product without harming a human. It is something I can live without. I have two options. I can refuse to buy and it and use the money I would have spent on it to purchase other things. Or I can look for versions that still cause harm, but cause less.
If I choose the first option, I am (with others who make the same choice) creating a market for alternatives. Businesses like to make money, they're eventually going to sell things that people are buying (Ben and Jerry's just introduced non-vegan ice creams, Hampton Creek [a company that makes egg alternatives] recently announced they are bringing dozens of new products to Walmart and Target next year, Chipotle now has a tofu option). Vegans aren't a "lost cause" to the food industry, just a portion of it.
Instead of giving my money to a industry that will "slowly, grudgingly" address my concerns with how animals are treated, I can simply refuse to give them my money. Does this create immediate change? No. But -- as we can see from the industry response to non-vegans who are concerned with how animals are being treated today -- option two doesn't create quick change either.
Why does anyone need a good reason to avoid a product? If you don't want to eat something for any reason, then don't.
It's the suggestion that it's immoral or unethical for anyone to consume animal products regardless of how the food was sourced because most animal food products are not sourced ethically that doesn't make sense to me.
While it's not something I agree with, I totally understand not killing animals to eat them no matter how painlessly they are killed or humanely they are raised. Saying I have the blood of roosters on my hands when I eat an egg from my chickens is something I don't understand.
I'm responding to your statement that the reasons given were "silly."
I don't think refusing to give money to a system I find objectionable "silly."
I don't see anyone arguing that it would be unethical to eat an animal product *regardless* of how it was sourced. I'll let the person making that argument respond.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »*Eating* animal products isn't an ethical decision, in my opinion. I'm not sure who you are responding to who said that, so I'll save space for them to respond.
Avoiding animal exploitation *is* an ethical decision. So eating an egg is a ethically neutral act. Treating a chicken as if they are simply a means to an end, a way to get an egg that can be slaughtered when it can no longer meet a human desire, that's what I object to. Due to economic reasons, there are very few ways to obtain eggs that don't support treating chickens in a way that I object to.
If chickens were treated as if they were more than means to an end, veganism (as it relates to chickens) wouldn't be an issue. If cows were treated as if they were more than means to an end, veganism (as it relates to cows) wouldn't be an issue. Veganism is a response to animal exploitation. This exploitation exists even outside of factory farming (as you sharing the common practice of small farms -- and your practice -- of killing "spent" hens. Animal exploitation goes beyond factory farming. Even small farms and hobbyists support hatcheries that cull male chicks. Even small farms and hobbyists slaughter animals. Veganism isn't just a response to factory farming.
If you're using to thinking of chickens as a way to get eggs (or chicken meat) or of cows as a way to get milk (or beef), this is probably an weird way of thinking of it. It may seem like animal mistreatment is limited to what happens on factory farms. But to a vegan, even "kinder" methods of getting animal products to the table create more suffering than we wish to support.
Eating the egg itself? That's not what is objected to. But that act doesn't exist in a vacuum. We're looking at what is supported by that decision, what other acts become economically or logistically necessary when many people in society wish to eat eggs.
Thanks for this informative reply. I'm wondering: do vegans support euthanasia in an old, ill family pet?
{may be wildly off topic, but Jane if you have a moment to answer I'd appreciate it. thanks.}
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions