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?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.
Sometimes I think that analogy almost reads like a passive aggressive attempt at equating omnivores to racists.0 -
htimpaired wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.
Sometimes I think that analogy almost reads like a passive aggressive attempt at equating omnivores to racists.
I think some people do mean it that way. I think other people are just genuinely clueless as to how it is coming across.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I think some people do mean it that way. I think other people are just genuinely clueless as to how it is coming across.
I realize the offense I seem to have caused by my statement, but I still feel as though what I actually said is being taken completely out of context and exaggerated. My intention, in its entirety, was that using the argument "its ok to continue doing _______ because most people don't have a problem with it" isn't sound logic or a good reason why or why not something should continue. Apparently my example of using a dark spot in human history where that same logic was applied was in poor taste. I was merely trying to prove my point that it was flawed logic, not trying to insinuate anything further or denigrate any group of people.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »
Should everyone be forced to suspend a practice that a minority objects to on their own personal moral/ethical grounds with no other cause to do so?
That's an interesting question that I've never contemplated before. I don't believe anybody should be forced to do anything. I think, for me, when I believe so strongly in something, I have a hard time understanding how other people don't feel exactly the same way I do. I did not mean for this conversation and thread to turn hostile, but I think it went there because of how passionate I am about the subject.
Understandable - it's hard to discuss a position objectively when you are personally invested in it. The more passionate you are about it, the harder it gets.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »Meat is tasty to many.
There are plenty who are unwilling to give it up and plenty that have no moral or ethical conflict when it comes to killing animals for food.
That is why we continue to kill animals for meat. If no one wanted it, no one would bother.
So by that logic, wee should never have ended slavery because plenty of people were unwilling to give it up and had no moral or ethical conflict with owning slaves? Just making sure I'm following your thought process.
Here's a thought. If you ever, ever, ever, remotely have the idea of comparing slavery, or humans, to animals don't. It just makes you look like you have some kind of racists view of people as subhuman that were slaves. It will never, in the eyes of anyone you're arguing with, make a decent argument that animals are on a level with people because, quiet frankly, they aren't. There are all kinds of compelling arguments for not eating animals, but denigrating other humans by even allowing the shadow of the implication that they are the same as animals, is not one of them.
If you choose to completely miss the point I was making about the flawed logic in the poster's argument, so be it. My analogy was spot on. And in no way was I comparing animals to slaves or vice versa. My point was that using the argument "people don't have a problem with it" as a reason to continue doing something is not a good argument.
And FYI - that was not an argument I was making. I was providing the reality of the situation. That is why people kill animals for meat.
Perhaps you meant to ask 'why do people think it is OK to kill animals for meat?'0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »
Should everyone be forced to suspend a practice that a minority objects to on their own personal moral/ethical grounds with no other cause to do so?
That's an interesting question that I've never contemplated before. I don't believe anybody should be forced to do anything. I think, for me, when I believe so strongly in something, I have a hard time understanding how other people don't feel exactly the same way I do. I did not mean for this conversation and thread to turn hostile, but I think it went there because of how passionate I am about the subject.
Understandable - it's hard to discuss a position objectively when you are personally invested in it. The more passionate you are about it, the harder it gets.
Exactly. Never really realized that before as I typically stay out of these vegan vs. meat eater arguments for obvious reasons.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
Should everyone be forced to suspend a practice that a minority objects to on their own personal moral/ethical grounds with no other cause to do so?
That's an interesting question that I've never contemplated before. I don't believe anybody should be forced to do anything. I think, for me, when I believe so strongly in something, I have a hard time understanding how other people don't feel exactly the same way I do. I did not mean for this conversation and thread to turn hostile, but I think it went there because of how passionate I am about the subject.
Understandable - it's hard to discuss a position objectively when you are personally invested in it. The more passionate you are about it, the harder it gets.
Exactly. Never really realized that before as I typically stay out of these vegan vs. meat eater arguments for obvious reasons.
And that's why people shouldn't lecture others about their moral decisions.
Of course, none of that was the original question, which asked if eating a meat, vegetarian, or vegan diet was healthier.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Well, I'm glad I stuck a nerve. For many vegetarians, this is a moral issue. This needs to be brought home before the nutritional fluff disguises it again.
The goat farmer I talked to who was raising meat had come to a moral certainty in his line of work, and he took great pride in not causing any unnecessary suffering to the creatures in his care.
We don't ask a cheetah, wolf, or lion to put aside their natural urges in sympathy of their chosen food source. And the ruminants in turn don't offer themselves, in sympathy, as easy meat. In the brutal cycle that is nature, the youngest, oldest, and weakest are taken, which in the long run of things, strengthens the herd.
But, as humans, we frequently expect our fellow humans to put aside natural urges in certain situations because we acknowledge that humans are capable of moral reasoning.
There may be an argument that it is morally justified to express our natural urges against all animals but humans. Is that what you're arguing? I would guess that you are opposed to "the brutal cycle that is nature" when it involves a human against another human.
It is clear that predators have no moral compunction to avoid meat.
We continue to be charmed by examples of extra-species compassion. I don't think we are allowed the ego any more to think we are the only creatures capable of compassion; not with the mapping and cataloging of DNA. It turns out we have a good deal more in common with our fellow creatures.
http://www.livescience.com/24800-animals-emotions-morality.html
It turns out our superiority has more to do with dumb luck. We're a little faster, smarter, inventive, and cooperative than our next closest competitor(s). In fact, we've wiped a few competitors off the map (Neanderthal). Our dominance is merely a result dumb luck of being at the top of the food chain.
We haven't worried about our responsibilities until recently. I'm talking revolutionary leaps forward like the Renaissance, print, industrialization, photography, news, and conquering space. Not until we saw our fragile blue ball in the vastness of space, did our civilization develop any sense that we could spoil the very place we depend on to live.
Not too long ago public executions were viewed as entertainment. Human life did not hold much candle.
But as we've extended and improved our lives and figured out how to keep every one of our infants alive through to adulthood, our expectations for life and reverence for life has grown leaps and bounds. First we extended compassion and expectation of long life to our families, neighbourhoods, countries, and now to the world.
I am not convinced that morality is "universal". I think we are all, animal and human alike driven by our natures. I prefer that the drive to altruism, compassion rule us. A kinder, gentler world, IMO, is one that will survive.1 -
On reflection, my answer is overly long. I think our morality is bound to our humanity, and is not universal. I think we are quite blind to many of our own prejudices. For instance, why is the Panda more worthy of protection than the mosquito?
I am comfortable including meat in my diet, due to the dumb luck of being at the top of the food chain, and being human.0 -
iona_ellen wrote: »[...]What's your view? And from the nutrition side why did you choose this way?
Remember we're fitness 'pals' so stay friendly:D!
My View: Many would label me vegan, but I prefer to describe my dietary life-style as a whole foods, plant based (or simply a starch-based diet).
My Motivation (short version): The science and evidence was indisputable that a plant/starch based diet is the most optimal diet for a variety of factors considered (weight management AND chronic disease prevention and/or reversal AND overall good health and longevity).
My Motivation (long version):After watching a few food/nutritionally driven documentaries, I spent 2 years decreasing my animal consumption to only fish, diary and eggs. As my awareness for what I ate changed and I started to be more conscientious of consuming more produce and legumes and organic when possible. After experiencing a major health scare in conjunction with learning how to use nutrition as a primary source of healing and restoration, I decided to try for 21 days to eat a plant-based diet; twenty-one days is now 8 months later. I find this dietary lifestyle aligns with other interests I have - living more sustainably and supporting local/regional farmers/food producers.0 -
By the way, I came across this anecdote from one of the founding businessmen in my province,
"Burns was able to revolutionize the slaughterhouse industry by emphasizing efficiency in the utilization of by-products.[12] Traditionally much of the animals had been lost to waste but with his advanced abattoirs, Burns was able to expand the list of recoverable products. This included leather, fats for soap, bone for bone meal and manufactured articles, fertilizers, glycerine, hair for brushes, and even an array of pharmaceuticals. Burns would joke that the only product not recovered were the pigs' squeals which could have been sold to politicians.[12]" - Wikipedia
It could be said that the industrialization of the abbattoir allowed for greater utilization of the animal. I believe if we take the life of an animal it be done respectfully, with a minimum of harm, and that best use be made from it's death.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.
Thank you. I did not mean all vegans when I used the term echo chamber, but I see now it could be taken that way. I'm aware that a number of vegans and vegetarians disagree strongly with many of the more problematic arguments against eating animals such as comparing it to slavery, rape, human infanticide, etc. My own personal stance (even though I'm not even vegetarian) is that being vegan is not a moral necessity, but it is a moral good - similar to say human acts of charity: I wouldn't expect anyone to give up all their worldly possessions to others, but someone that does so, I consider as someone doing good. I think people that view vegan as a moral necessity are the ones more likely to make analogies that tend to be problematic because they start with the assumption of morality.
I was pretty sure you didn't mean it that way, but I hate people thinking that all vegans think that way . . . so I wanted to make sure.
I do think these conversations get out-of-hand a lot of times because people do start them thinking everyone shares certain base assumptions. But when it comes to discussions of morality, we can't assume everyone is working from the same assumptions.
I do think humans are unique among animals (although new findings about the inner lives of animals like dolphins or whales could certainly challenge that) and I can understand how people can conclude that we have an obligation to avoid harming other humans unnecessarily but that obligation doesn't carry over to other animals (I wouldn't agree with that argument, but I do understand it). When that is where someone is coming from, it's counter-productive to compare how we treat animals to slavery (and it's incredibly tone-deaf to the terrible historical realities of how black people have been talked about and demeaned over the years.
It would be nice if people remembered (or learned if they don't know) that members of every race have been enslaved at some point in history and that slavery continues today.0 -
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.
0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
Should everyone be forced to suspend a practice that a minority objects to on their own personal moral/ethical grounds with no other cause to do so?
That's an interesting question that I've never contemplated before. I don't believe anybody should be forced to do anything. I think, for me, when I believe so strongly in something, I have a hard time understanding how other people don't feel exactly the same way I do. I did not mean for this conversation and thread to turn hostile, but I think it went there because of how passionate I am about the subject.
Understandable - it's hard to discuss a position objectively when you are personally invested in it. The more passionate you are about it, the harder it gets.
Exactly. Never really realized that before as I typically stay out of these vegan vs. meat eater arguments for obvious reasons.
And that's why people shouldn't lecture others about their moral decisions.
Of course, none of that was the original question, which asked if eating a meat, vegetarian, or vegan diet was healthier.
Agreed. My apologies for aggressively turning a nutrition/health thread into an argument/lecture over morals.0 -
On reflection, my answer is overly long. I think our morality is bound to our humanity, and is not universal. I think we are quite blind to many of our own prejudices. For instance, why is the Panda more worthy of protection than the mosquito?
I am comfortable including meat in my diet, due to the dumb luck of being at the top of the food chain, and being human.
Morality is not universal unless someone can point to a golden set of rules to unequivocally define it. That is one of the attractions of religion, of course. The belief that one has a perfect set of such rules to follow.
Right and wrong is defined by each of us as individuals, and as societies small and large. At any stage sets of morals may conflict.
Moral conflicts are a slippery business. It's why we rely on consensus, etc, to establish more widely agreed upon or at least understood rules like official codes of ethics and the rule of law.0 -
htimpaired wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.
Sometimes I think that analogy almost reads like a passive aggressive attempt at equating omnivores to racists.
There are some vegans - probably a rather small minority within veganism - that believe in specie-ism, that eating animals and animal products is wrong because it is treating animals differently than humans. These people tend towards the fruit eating diets because eating whole plants is also wrong in specieiesm. I've yet to hear how they avoid killing bacteria and parasites living in them - usually something about self defense.0 -
buzz28camaro wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I think some people do mean it that way. I think other people are just genuinely clueless as to how it is coming across.
I realize the offense I seem to have caused by my statement, but I still feel as though what I actually said is being taken completely out of context and exaggerated. My intention, in its entirety, was that using the argument "its ok to continue doing _______ because most people don't have a problem with it" isn't sound logic or a good reason why or why not something should continue. Apparently my example of using a dark spot in human history where that same logic was applied was in poor taste. I was merely trying to prove my point that it was flawed logic, not trying to insinuate anything further or denigrate any group of people.
So you would be in the second camp. Now that you realize how that analogy has the potential to alienate people and obscure the point you're trying to make, maybe take it out of your toolkit?0 -
On reflection, my answer is overly long. I think our morality is bound to our humanity, and is not universal. I think we are quite blind to many of our own prejudices. For instance, why is the Panda more worthy of protection than the mosquito?
I am comfortable including meat in my diet, due to the dumb luck of being at the top of the food chain, and being human.
So are you saying that because something can be done and has been done, it should continue to be done?0 -
I'm currently (it's almost finished though) taking a college class on ethics in information technology (so not quite related to this but there is obviously some overlap in the underlying principles). Part of my reading material states, "Behavior that is consistent with one's moral values would be considered ethical behavior. Actions that are inconsistent with one's view of right, just, and good are considered unethical behavior. However, it is important to note that determining what is ethical is not just an individual decision -it also is determined societally."janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, these are very gray lines. Like most people who eat meat, it's not like I've spent a great deal of time assessing all of this. I understand your point though. All I can say is, I feel as though I'm doing what's best for my body and my needs. I can't honestly say that I'm not eating an ounce more meat or animal products than what I think my body truly needs, but personally I don't consider it to be that much of a significant effect. And for me, analyzing exactly how much I really need to avoid the slightest bit of animal exploitation would cause a lot of extra stress.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Regarding the first point, I'm more so thinking about the overall vegan lifestyle - avoiding using/consuming everything that is animal related. I'm not sure mentally I could do that without going insane, which would affect my ability to help others.janejellyroll 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 don't see the connection between the two. Refraining from using an animal for food doesn't increase or decrease one's ability to help other humans. And you stated above that you believe we were created to have superiority over animals and that includes eating them. Are you saying that if human suffering was eradicated it would then become okay to defy the will of your creator? I thought I understood that there were no circumstances in which you felt it was appropriate to minimize animal exploitation, but now I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure how to respond to your personal belief that you could not thrive on a diet without animal products. There is no data there, so it isn't really something that one can engage with. I don't think there is any evidence that many people can't thrive on a diet without animal products. What data are you basing that statement on?
If I understand your second question correctly, I don't believe it's ethical to just go killing animals for the fun of it.
Again, when I refer to eating a diet without animal products, I mean without supplementing (which is of course a modern invention). If you're supplementing, then I would imagine your success eating a vegan diet would possibly be very different than 200 years ago. I just got my B12 level tested, and based on the result I think it's very reasonable that I'd be very deficient if eating a vegan diet without supplementing that vitamin.
If you mean that it would personally take mental effort for you to refrain from animal exploitation and that this mental effort would make you less able to help other humans because it would lead to your insanity, I understand what you're saying. Would I be correct in assuming that you have reduced your level of animal exploitation to the amount that you can comfortably avoid without inducing mental illness? Or do you engage in more than this? If you haven't reduced it to the level that you can sustain without having stress, I don't understand the argument.
If it isn't ethical to kill animals for the fun of it, do you believe that people have an ethical obligation to limit their animal exploitation to the level necessary to sustain health (we'll include mental health in this, as it seems like some people -- like yourself -- feel their mental health would be in danger if they avoid animal exploitation)? Every act of animal exploitation that isn't necessary to sustain physical and emotional health would be for "fun" (or "pleasure"), so you would consider these unethical?
Supplementation is a modern invention. I'm not sure what the relevance of that point is. I'm not arguing that people have an obligation to go vegan 1,000 years ago or even 200 years ago. I'm talking about today, where supplementation is cheap and easy (at least for people like us, people who are on computers). And again, if the desire to avoid supplementation (except for vitamin D) gives one an ethical justification for animal exploitation, we have to address the ethics of exploiting animals beyond what is needed to secure B12 needs. Would you consider any consumption of animal products above and beyond what is needed to secure B12 needs unethical? If not, then the supplementation argument is kind of a red herring.
What about a general analysis instead of a specific one?
Would you say that someone who consumed much more than they needed was acting unethically? I'm trying to get to the heart of your supplementation argument because it seems to only make sense to me if one is (generally) limiting consumption to actual needs.
I understand your "feeling" that you're doing what is best for your body and your needs. I'm trying to see if we can move this conversation beyond feelings. If you don't want to do that, I completely understand. I'm not trying to be aggressive here, I just consider this an interesting debate.
Based on this definition, I find it hard to really answer your question regarding someone who is eating much more animal products than needed. I think to really answer this question is going to vary case by case. If you take an overweight American male who frequently eats, say, 32+oz steaks along with a lot of other animal products, certainly I'd say that's overkill, and they should cut back. But as for the ethical nature of it, I don't know that I would jump to say that it's "wrong". If anything, I'd say it's wrong because they simply do not need all of that and it's probably doing their body more harm than good. But my first reasoning for saying it's wrong or not moral wouldn't necessarily be because of animal exploitation. That being said, I do think there is some element of injustice there with regards to animal exploitation. And again ,my reasoning for that is probably because of the humans > animals idea.
Also, based on that definition of ethics, to move the discussion beyond feelings would mean evaluating the decision based on social norms. And this is where it gets complicated, because you could evaluate the situation
based on satisfying most people, or trying to satisfy everyone.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.
Thank you. I did not mean all vegans when I used the term echo chamber, but I see now it could be taken that way. I'm aware that a number of vegans and vegetarians disagree strongly with many of the more problematic arguments against eating animals such as comparing it to slavery, rape, human infanticide, etc. My own personal stance (even though I'm not even vegetarian) is that being vegan is not a moral necessity, but it is a moral good - similar to say human acts of charity: I wouldn't expect anyone to give up all their worldly possessions to others, but someone that does so, I consider as someone doing good. I think people that view vegan as a moral necessity are the ones more likely to make analogies that tend to be problematic because they start with the assumption of morality.
I was pretty sure you didn't mean it that way, but I hate people thinking that all vegans think that way . . . so I wanted to make sure.
I do think these conversations get out-of-hand a lot of times because people do start them thinking everyone shares certain base assumptions. But when it comes to discussions of morality, we can't assume everyone is working from the same assumptions.
I do think humans are unique among animals (although new findings about the inner lives of animals like dolphins or whales could certainly challenge that) and I can understand how people can conclude that we have an obligation to avoid harming other humans unnecessarily but that obligation doesn't carry over to other animals (I wouldn't agree with that argument, but I do understand it). When that is where someone is coming from, it's counter-productive to compare how we treat animals to slavery (and it's incredibly tone-deaf to the terrible historical realities of how black people have been talked about and demeaned over the years.
It would be nice if people remembered (or learned if they don't know) that members of every race have been enslaved at some point in history and that slavery continues today.
That's true, but the analogy used by some vegans is based specifically on arguments in favor of chattel slavery which has a particular context in the US. While people of all races and ethnicities have been slaves, not all of them have been compared to animals to justify that slavery -- and that historical reality is why I think comparing animal exploitation to slavery can be so harmful.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions