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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Not sure why it would have a particular context in the U.S. other than that it is about the only incidence of slavery that is taught, even in World History, which I find bizarre. Chattel slavery is a common form of slavery throughout history. It is only relatively recently that it has become illegal.
In most instances of chattel slavery the slaves were compared to animals. It was part of reclassifying fellow humans as suitable to be a possession. When it was an instance of one race/ethnicity enslaving another, it was usually the whole group that was compared to oxen or what-have-you. In the instances where people were enslaved by their own culture, it was the individual or slaves in general.
It has a particular context in the US because we have millions of citizens who are descended from people held in chattel slavery, an institution that was abolished just recently (historically speaking). If my comments made you think I was ignorant about slavery in general, I assure you that I'm not. I didn't even take World History, I tested out of it and went on to take other history classes.
I still think that talking about slavery and comparing those held in slavery to animals often brings specific racial components to the conversation, something we should be aware of when throwing analogies about slavery around.0 -
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.
0 -
Indeed, to a certain extent, the construction of race as a concept comes out of justifying chattel slavery.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Not certain I agree with that. Chattel slavery was often within a race.
Race as a concept grew out of the simple observation that certain groups have significantly different and generally internally consistent physical characteristics. Obvious differences like that would undoubtedly have fed the 'you're different than us and therefore less than us' mentality. Also would have fed xenophobia.
0 -
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.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."
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Not sure why it would have a particular context in the U.S. other than that it is about the only incidence of slavery that is taught, even in World History, which I find bizarre. Chattel slavery is a common form of slavery throughout history. It is only relatively recently that it has become illegal.
In most instances of chattel slavery the slaves were compared to animals. It was part of reclassifying fellow humans as suitable to be a possession. When it was an instance of one race/ethnicity enslaving another, it was usually the whole group that was compared to oxen or what-have-you. In the instances where people were enslaved by their own culture, it was the individual or slaves in general.
It has a particular context in the US because we have millions of citizens who are descended from people held in chattel slavery, an institution that was abolished just recently (historically speaking). If my comments made you think I was ignorant about slavery in general, I assure you that I'm not. I didn't even take World History, I tested out of it and went on to take other history classes.
I still think that talking about slavery and comparing those held in slavery to animals often brings specific racial components to the conversation, something we should be aware of when throwing analogies about slavery around.
I suppose that is part of the point. A lot more people in the US are descendants of slaves than those whose ancestors were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. A discussion of slavery should not* bring up specific racial components unless you're discussing a specific group of slaves.
*In the U.S. it does because that is typically all people here learn about or think about when slavery is mentioned.0 -
Indeed, to a certain extent, the construction of race as a concept comes out of justifying chattel slavery.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Not certain I agree with that. Chattel slavery was often within a race.
Race as a concept grew out of the simple observation that certain groups have significantly different and generally internally consistent physical characteristics. Obvious differences like that would undoubtedly have fed the 'you're different than us and therefore less than us' mentality. Also would have fed xenophobia.
Race grew up as a concept around the idea of making in and out of power groups and justifying the ability of the in power to look down on the out of power. It becomes clear if you ever look at how races have been redefined over time, and how one era's idea of race changes.
For example, people would think me strange if I said Irish people aren't white, but in the 1700 and early 1800s, Irish people were not considered white. Whites were considered the Anglo-Saxons, Germanic and Nordic people, while it was assured that the Irish were of the distinctly Celtic ancestry that was not white.
Prior to colonialism and slavery, you'd often find descriptions of skin tone and such, but most dividing lines were far more about nationality / culture rather than lumping whole groups together like all of Africa or all of Asia. It was in the 1700s that there actually become a "scientific" study of race, and with slavery there became the one drop of blood rule to consider race some kind of inherited property that goes beyond outward appearance.0 -
There was a time when the poor weren't considered fully human either, and thought incapable of anything but the most menial tasks. The founders of the American Constitution did not envision that voting privileges would extend beyond (male) landowners.
Oops I should cite my sources. Recently read:
The French Peasantry in the Seventeenth Century
Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History0 -
I give up meat for Lent.
Otherwise, I live on meat, cheese, coffee and beer.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Not sure why it would have a particular context in the U.S. other than that it is about the only incidence of slavery that is taught, even in World History, which I find bizarre. Chattel slavery is a common form of slavery throughout history. It is only relatively recently that it has become illegal.
In most instances of chattel slavery the slaves were compared to animals. It was part of reclassifying fellow humans as suitable to be a possession. When it was an instance of one race/ethnicity enslaving another, it was usually the whole group that was compared to oxen or what-have-you. In the instances where people were enslaved by their own culture, it was the individual or slaves in general.
It has a particular context in the US because we have millions of citizens who are descended from people held in chattel slavery, an institution that was abolished just recently (historically speaking). If my comments made you think I was ignorant about slavery in general, I assure you that I'm not. I didn't even take World History, I tested out of it and went on to take other history classes.
I still think that talking about slavery and comparing those held in slavery to animals often brings specific racial components to the conversation, something we should be aware of when throwing analogies about slavery around.
I suppose that is part of the point. A lot more people in the US are descendants of slaves than those whose ancestors were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. A discussion of slavery should not* bring up specific racial components unless you're discussing a specific group of slaves.
*In the U.S. it does because that is typically all people here learn about or think about when slavery is mentioned.
In the US it does because of our Constitution, our history, and the Civil War, among other reasons.0 -
There was a time when the poor weren't considered fully human either, and thought incapable of anything but the most menial tasks. The founders of the American Constitution did not envision that voting privileges would extend beyond (male) landowners.
Oops I should cite my sources. Recently read:
The French Peasantry in the Seventeenth Century
Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History
In the early US the issue wasn't that non-landowners weren't fully human, but that they were not thought to have an adequate interest/stake in the gov't.0 -
I'm not opposed to any of those lifestyle choices… And I don't think it's a "one size fits all" answer… When I eat what I want, it's pretty much considered "vegan"… These are the foods I want and my body feels best on. Furthermore, I don't (typically) eat bread, pasta, tortillas, or other "bready" things, because I don't feel good when I do.. I feel my very best eating fruits, veggies, nuts, beans, seeds, and some grains (rice/oats). So I stick to those.. I'm no opposed to eating meat or cheese, I just don't feel great when I do, so it's very limited. Oh, and, wine.0
-
I'm a very happy vegetarian of 11 years. It takes conscious effort to ensure adequate nutrition, but once you find the balance, there are a lot of benefits to the diet. I am a fitness freak and still get loads of protein and have awesome energy levels. I have pet backyard chickens that lay eggs for me and have a great free-range life. The best part is I know that in my dietary choices I am not supporting awful practices of the industries. In that case, meat is "consuming suffering." What is the offensive aspect of consuming meat is the factory farming conditions more than the simple fact of consuming another organism... It's that it lived a vile, confined, miserable, torturous existence. Local farm sourced is an entirely different story.
I just know that I don't miss meat and I am without guilt for my food choices and what I am supporting. 0 -
I'll stick with "not fully human", or sub-human. It's how we manage to emotionally distance ourselves from our own atrocities.
From Savage to Citizen: The Invention of the Peasant in the French Enlightenment By Amy S. Wyngaard0 -
I'll stick with "not fully human", or sub-human. It's how we manage to emotionally distance ourselves from our own atrocities.
From Savage to Citizen: The Invention of the Peasant in the French Enlightenment By Amy S. Wyngaard
Yes, I'm familiar, that's why I specified in the US. The culture of pre Revolution France and immediately post-Colonial US were quite different. It's a bit later, but if you don't trust US/American commentary on the reasoning for the restrictions, Tocqueville's Democracy in America is a good source for some of the differences, as well as his Reflections on the Revolution in France and criticism of Burke's understanding (Burke not being an American, obviously, but still relevant to the cultural differences).0 -
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 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'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.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.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."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Not sure why it would have a particular context in the U.S. other than that it is about the only incidence of slavery that is taught, even in World History, which I find bizarre. Chattel slavery is a common form of slavery throughout history. It is only relatively recently that it has become illegal.
In most instances of chattel slavery the slaves were compared to animals. It was part of reclassifying fellow humans as suitable to be a possession. When it was an instance of one race/ethnicity enslaving another, it was usually the whole group that was compared to oxen or what-have-you. In the instances where people were enslaved by their own culture, it was the individual or slaves in general.
It has a particular context in the US because we have millions of citizens who are descended from people held in chattel slavery, an institution that was abolished just recently (historically speaking). If my comments made you think I was ignorant about slavery in general, I assure you that I'm not. I didn't even take World History, I tested out of it and went on to take other history classes.
I still think that talking about slavery and comparing those held in slavery to animals often brings specific racial components to the conversation, something we should be aware of when throwing analogies about slavery around.
I suppose that is part of the point. A lot more people in the US are descendants of slaves than those whose ancestors were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. A discussion of slavery should not* bring up specific racial components unless you're discussing a specific group of slaves.
*In the U.S. it does because that is typically all people here learn about or think about when slavery is mentioned.
Exactly. Because what it is people think about, discussions of slavery become discussions of race. That's exactly my point.
There's no way for a vegan advocate to bring up the slavery=animal exploitation analogy *without* seeming as if they are somehow making an equivalence between black people and animals. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Whether or not this is okay and we should somehow have a completely color-blind understanding of slavery that has nothing to do with race is besides the point. We live in the world that we live in and people comparing slavery to other forms of injustice need to be aware of it.
*I'm not so convinced we should have a completely colorblind discussion of slavery in the context of US history. Yes, many Americans are descended from slaves. But when you look at the legal history of slavery, it's clear that the African-American experience was unique -- down to the Constitution specifically excluding them, the Dred Scot decision, the limited rights of non-enslaved black people, the regulations on literacy, the impact on family life, and the incomplete task to grant civil rights following the War.0 -
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.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."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.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."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
If a person thinks something is fine and 90% of society agrees, is that sufficient for you to conclude it is morally justifiable? The problem with this is that we can probably both point to many things that individuals felt okay doing (and 90% of society agreed with) that we can now clearly see were not justifiable. Or is that just the first step of a process? If it's the first step for you in determining eating meat is okay, what is the second step?
Is it asking why or how we decided it was fine? What is your answer to this question? Why do you think we, as a society, have decided it is okay to hurt animals for our pleasure?0 -
new vegan (literally only a week so far) enjoying it now- would love if anyone could check out my diary & give me some more fun vegan suggestions! x0
-
beccadailly95 wrote: »new vegan (literally only a week so far) enjoying it now- would love if anyone could check out my diary & give me some more fun vegan suggestions! x
You aren't eating a whole lot and your protein is seems to be pretty low. Not sure if the low calories is on purpose or not, but I recommend increasing your protein.
Also, there aren't a whole lot of vegans in this thread. You may have better luck getting feedback in some other threads (try one of the vegan threads in "Food and Nutrition").0 -
beccadailly95 wrote: »new vegan (literally only a week so far) enjoying it now- would love if anyone could check out my diary & give me some more fun vegan suggestions! x
This is the debate forum, so you'll likely not find much feedback here. But, you could start a thread in the food and nutrition section, or you could give this group a try: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/45-happy-herbivores0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.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."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
That's a pretty easy question to answer. We dictated it was fine because it natural, and at some point was necessary. Sure vegans/vegetarians have plenty of protein choices today but a good many of those are processed. At some point in our history we did not possess the knowledge or ability to process these foods. Humans ate what food they could find and we found animals. It wasn't about wanting to hurt animals, it was about survival.
The bigger question is when and why did some dictate that it's no longer fine.0 -
Om-nom-nom-nivor. I have teeth designed for ripping an tearing, and teeth designed for mashin' up plant material.
Due to the my own bro-science of my toofers; an eclectic meal is the best for me.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.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."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
That's a pretty easy question to answer. We dictated it was fine because it natural, and at some point was necessary. Sure vegans/vegetarians have plenty of protein choices today but a good many of those are processed. At some point in our history we did not possess the knowledge or ability to process these foods. Humans ate what food they could find and we found animals. It wasn't about wanting to hurt animals, it was about survival.
The bigger question is when and why did some dictate that it's no longer fine.
We've decided (I don't know if "dictate" is the right word) that all sorts of "natural" and maybe even "necessary" things are not okay when we have options.
I am sure there are some "natural" human behaviors that you wouldn't find morally acceptable. The only difference between you and a vegan is that vegans are including animals in this reassessment.
Could we be wrong? I have no idea. I'm not a moral philosopher. But I don't think the fact that something is "natural" is a sufficient moral justification. And something being necessary at one point is irrelevant. The question would be "is it justifiable when it is unnecessary?" This is the point of disagreement, not whether it was necessary at one point.
And yes, beans and grains and vegetables are sometimes processed. But they're also included in many healthful diet patterns across the world.0 -
I have been wheat, gluten and dairy free for many years due to intolerance's and the fact dairy makes my chuck up reflux contract violently. Veganism was natural to me and I have never felt better for it. I could go into the many, many ethical and environmental reasons as to why I have chosen to become vegan but I won't bore you with that.0
-
Om-nom-nom-nivor. I have teeth designed for ripping an tearing, and teeth designed for mashin' up plant material.
Due to the my own bro-science of my toofers; an eclectic meal is the best for me.
I find the teeth argument funny when your profile picture involves drinking from a very unnatural straw, possibly getting nutrition in a way that involves no need for teeth. 1 -
beccadailly95 wrote: »new vegan (literally only a week so far) enjoying it now- would love if anyone could check out my diary & give me some more fun vegan suggestions! x
This is the debate forum, so you'll likely not find much feedback here. But, you could start a thread in the food and nutrition section, or you could give this group a try: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/45-happy-herbivores
Yeah, but is the debate section, so I'm going to contend this is the perfect place to post that comment, in opposition to your statement.
0 -
I get what you're saying, and I would say there are no easy answers to any of these questions.janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.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."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
That's a pretty easy question to answer. We dictated it was fine because it natural, and at some point was necessary. Sure vegans/vegetarians have plenty of protein choices today but a good many of those are processed. At some point in our history we did not possess the knowledge or ability to process these foods. Humans ate what food they could find and we found animals. It wasn't about wanting to hurt animals, it was about survival.
The bigger question is when and why did some dictate that it's no longer fine.
We've decided (I don't know if "dictate" is the right word) that all sorts of "natural" and maybe even "necessary" things are not okay when we have options.
I am sure there are some "natural" human behaviors that you wouldn't find morally acceptable. The only difference between you and a vegan is that vegans are including animals in this reassessment.
Could we be wrong? I have no idea. I'm not a moral philosopher. But I don't think the fact that something is "natural" is a sufficient moral justification. And something being necessary at one point is irrelevant. The question would be "is it justifiable when it is unnecessary?" This is the point of disagreement, not whether it was necessary at one point.
And yes, beans and grains and vegetables are sometimes processed. But they're also included in many healthful diet patterns across the world.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.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."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
That's a pretty easy question to answer. We dictated it was fine because it natural, and at some point was necessary. Sure vegans/vegetarians have plenty of protein choices today but a good many of those are processed. At some point in our history we did not possess the knowledge or ability to process these foods. Humans ate what food they could find and we found animals. It wasn't about wanting to hurt animals, it was about survival.
The bigger question is when and why did some dictate that it's no longer fine.
We've decided (I don't know if "dictate" is the right word) that all sorts of "natural" and maybe even "necessary" things are not okay when we have options.
I am sure there are some "natural" human behaviors that you wouldn't find morally acceptable. The only difference between you and a vegan is that vegans are including animals in this reassessment.
Could we be wrong? I have no idea. I'm not a moral philosopher. But I don't think the fact that something is "natural" is a sufficient moral justification. And something being necessary at one point is irrelevant. The question would be "is it justifiable when it is unnecessary?" This is the point of disagreement, not whether it was necessary at one point.
And yes, beans and grains and vegetables are sometimes processed. But they're also included in many healthful diet patterns across the world.
If we are getting back to the OP's topic of which is healthier, I would have no argument that vegan or vegetarian or omnivore can be healthy, but none is a guarantee of health.
But the subject of the question I responded to was not health, it posed a question re: when we dictated that eating animals was fine. My response did not suggest that everything natural was a moral justification. The point was that we didn't dictate it was fine, some of us decided it was wrong.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