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
-
salembambi wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »salembambi wrote: »
Can I get one that says "Vegan Supervillain" ? I keep looking but can never seem to find one. Need one for the volcano lair.
or
I'd say you were my hero...but then we'd have to be enemies. So... frenemies?0 -
It's easier to lose weight if you're vegetarian rather than vegan, but both are tough! You simply have too much difficulty losing weight while remaining healthy!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I should have mentioned that neither is impossible, but the balancing act between weight and optimum health is tough! What I'm saying is: granted there are legumes, and other non-meat sources of protein, but they are incomplete amino acids; so you have to eat more of them to equal the amino acids in, say, a portion of chicken.
I realize that you may not have a choice in your diet, in which case eggs, milk, yogurt and kefir are the non-meat sources I use!0 -
Ovo-lacto pescatarian. I no longer eat any meat but fish, but I do drink milk and eat eggs. Easier to get protein that way, and I like it. Meat (especially red meat or a large quantity of any meat) makes me feel physically ill and lethargic so keeping to this isn't difficult.0
-
I should have mentioned that neither is impossible, but the balancing act between weight and optimum health is tough! What I'm saying is: granted there are legumes, and other non-meat sources of protein, but they are incomplete amino acids; so you have to eat more of them to equal the amino acids in, say, a portion of chicken.
I realize that you may not have a choice in your diet, in which case eggs, milk, yogurt and kefir are the non-meat sources I use!
Soy is complete.
The idea of complete protein is a bit of a misnomer. Plants all have the same amino acids are animals, though some parts of some plants might be low in some amino acids - wheat gluten is a specific wheat protein that is used as a meat substitute that seems to lack trytophan, but the whole protein content of wheat as a plant contains all the essential amino acids. If you are getting very high amounts of protein, the limiting amino acids will generally be taken care of. Your body doesn't need access to all amino acids in one sitting to utilize them, you do buffer some - more like a 24 hour window or so at worse.
Soy has an amino acid profile not that far removed from whey or casein, often considered the ideal animal product proteins. I'm not even vegetarian but I tend to eat a lot of soy protein because it is of such quality, with lower cost than animal protein sources.0 -
That's fine! You just don't get the necessary protein from legumes alone. Or rather you have to choose between losing weight or being as healthy as you can be!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
That's fine! You just don't get the necessary protein from legumes alone. Or rather you have to choose between losing weight or being as healthy as you can be!
I haven't had to choose. The last time I had a check up....my doctor did comprehensive testing and I received an A++ across the board. I lost 60 lbs. Trained for a half marathon and continued to focus on my fitness and health. No reason to choose here.
Good job, then!0 -
It is really difficult to be vegan, and I think it isn't for everyone. I think some people will feel great on it but for some people it just doesn't work for them. I really loved the idea of becoming a vegan. My diet was plants, fruits, legumes, grains, nuts (I don't eat soy or gluten). I tried for about a month and I felt awful, my energy was very low but at same time my calorie intake was very high because I was trying to eat more food to help with my energy.
I came to the conclusion that my body requires more protein and it is really hard to get enough protein while at the same time maintaining your calorie goal on a vegan diet. For example to get the same # of protein out of legumes as I would with chicken, I would have to increase the amount of legumes which would lead to eating more calories than I would've eaten if I had chicken. Also increasing my intake of so much fiber and legumes in order to get that protein led to digestive issues and bloating.
At the time I really wanted veganism to work for me, but I now take it as an early sign my body was giving me that I need to be an omnivore.
I have a feeling a vegan diet works for those that include soy, but I can't eat it.
0 -
It's easier to lose weight if you're vegetarian rather than vegan, but both are tough! You simply have too much difficulty losing weight while remaining healthy!
I have a friend who recently switched from vegetarian to vegan (after experimenting with vegan for periods in the past -- we both did a vegan Lent a while back), and while she would argue it was easy to gain or lose on either, she tended to be overweight when vegetarian and finds that it's easier not to overeat when vegan because most of her high cal foods were cheese related or restaurant desserts (which are rarely vegan). Obviously that could change as she adjusts.
What she said is similar to my experience, though. I never try to lose weight during Lent and usually go vegetarian (not this year) and usually don't lose weight. The one time I went vegan (for Lent and then again for a while after) weight seemed to fall off even though I wasn't trying to lose (I was also pretty active at the time).
It probably depends on where your excess calories tend to come from. I'm not really someone who overeats starches.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's easier to lose weight if you're vegetarian rather than vegan, but both are tough! You simply have too much difficulty losing weight while remaining healthy!
I have a friend who recently switched from vegetarian to vegan (after experimenting with vegan for periods in the past -- we both did a vegan Lent a while back), and while she would argue it was easy to gain or lose on either, she tended to be overweight when vegetarian and finds that it's easier not to overeat when vegan because most of her high cal foods were cheese related or restaurant desserts (which are rarely vegan). Obviously that could change as she adjusts.
What she said is similar to my experience, though. I never try to lose weight during Lent and usually go vegetarian (not this year) and usually don't lose weight. The one time I went vegan (for Lent and then again for a while after) weight seemed to fall off even though I wasn't trying to lose (I was also pretty active at the time).
It probably depends on where your excess calories tend to come from. I'm not really someone who overeats starches.
I would agree that this was a similar experience to what I had during my conversion. It didn't take me very long to find other, high calorie foods that I could over indulge in, though. In my experience, it's entirely just as easy to gain weight once the initial conversion period (which I refer to as the "what the hell can I even eat" period).
Once I got past the hurdle of not having a clue what to put in my face, it was all to easy to find entirely new (or substitutions) for all of my comfort foods. So, yeah I lost weight for a few weeks/months... but it quickly turned around as I learned more about myself and food in general. I went from being overweight, to slightly less overweight, to right back where I started as my journey progressed. It wasn't until I started an actual effort to lose weight/fat that I turned it around. Simple "going vegan" wasn't enough to accomplish that without intentional effort.0 -
I'm a meat eater turned part time veg aka I'm married to a lacto-ovo vegetarian so only eat meat when my wife is away or I'm working and even then it's very little meat. I use meat replacements and eggs and plant sources for my protein needs. This generally pushes up my carb intact but not hugely. My main thought process is less carbs more protein so avoid pasta as much as possible and my wife grows our veg that I then cook.0
-
SamiHearken wrote: »I'm a meat eater turned part time veg aka I'm married to a lacto-ovo vegetarian so only eat meat when my wife is away or I'm working and even then it's very little meat. I use meat replacements and eggs and plant sources for my protein needs. This generally pushes up my carb intact but not hugely. My main thought process is less carbs more protein so avoid pasta as much as possible and my wife grows our veg that I then cook.
That's pretty much our situation, too! The Hubster eats veggie at home and gets whatever he wants when we've gone out. He could eat meat in the house if he wanted to, but opts not to.0 -
I tried the vegan thing but a lot of vegan foods are loaded with sodium. Switched to pescatarian0
-
I have a red meat intolerance (9 years of no red meat) so I pretty much just eat birds and fish (occasionally some lamb because I can, but rarely). I pick the vegetarian option if I'm going to an event because it's safer and I cook a lot of vegetarian food. I've had blood tests done every 6 months-1 year since I was diagnosed and my nutrition has always been perfect (except for one time when i was told I actually needed to increase my salt intake lol). Beef and pork are the worst for you and the worst for the environment so I'd highly recommend. Also, turkey burgers are the best.
TL/DR: try low-lean-meat0 -
I'm vegetarian for 16 months and vegan for 9 months. My motivation didn't have anything to do with health but I notice that I get sick less often (could be a coincidence but this is the first time in years I haven't been sick around september and december), my skin is better and most importantly, my headaches that used to kill me are gone.0
-
I think either can be fine. Although ALL of those still should be well informed about how to combine their foods to have all the nutrients they need. There's plenty of meat eaters that are sick due to a completely screwed up nutrient intake and I do find it interesting that the debate about vegetarians and vegans 'lacking' because of their diet is much larger.
I personally do eat meat, but I don't like to eat meat every day and I greatly value to check out where the meat is from. I tend to mark myself as vegetarian when I buy plane tickets, because I have no idea what and where from the meat will be in those frozen microwave dishes they give out.
If I travel to a country where they do a lot of bio engeneering or have lax laws about stuffing their livestock with antibiotic laced food, I still don't completely deny all meat, simply because I do like trying what local people eat. But I will eat significantly less than in countries with proper laws.
I know that topic is worth a whole other thread, probably. But well, to me this has a great influence to what kind of food I eat.
I also have to admit that if I would have to kill the animals myself in order to get meat. I'm pretty sure I would turn into a vegetarian. I do leech off the consumer society when it comes to that point.0 -
I was a vegetarian for a while but unfortunately was forced to stop because of my various health issues (I had these issues before going on a vegetarian diet btw). I can't have gluten, soy, most dairy, and a few other things. I really wanted to transition to becoming a vegan but my health issues took that option away. The diet I am on now has been very helpful in relieving my symptoms though. The closest diet I can make a comparison to it is the Primal diet. I stopped taking steroids because I no longer itch constantly because of the absence of wheat in my diet. Some people are on these diets (gluten free, vegan, vegetarian, paleo, and primal) because of some kind of health related issue.0
-
jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.
Those who do it "humanely"....what are they doing with the male chicks??? While using local farms that treat the chickens well is a step in the right direction IMO...it isn't exactly cruelty free if one does not know the answer to that question.
Full disclosure. I currently eat eggs. It is my goal to become vegan, but I am not there yet. However the issue of the destruction of male chicks in the process of produce hens for eggs is one of the main reasons. Right now I source where my eggs come from and feel as I said above, it is a step in the right direction, but if I want to eat a cruelty free diet, it is not the final step.
It varies. Let the male chicks grow to adulthood then eat them. Some are kept as protectors for the hens or as pets. Sell them or give them away. It's pretty easy to get a free rooster since some city ordinances prohibit raising them. Some may kill them, but I doubt that's common in small scale farming. Seems like a waste.0 -
So by one means or another, the extra males are being killed.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.
Those who do it "humanely"....what are they doing with the male chicks??? While using local farms that treat the chickens well is a step in the right direction IMO...it isn't exactly cruelty free if one does not know the answer to that question.
Full disclosure. I currently eat eggs. It is my goal to become vegan, but I am not there yet. However the issue of the destruction of male chicks in the process of produce hens for eggs is one of the main reasons. Right now I source where my eggs come from and feel as I said above, it is a step in the right direction, but if I want to eat a cruelty free diet, it is not the final step.
It varies. Let the male chicks grow to adulthood then eat them. Some are kept as protectors for the hens or as pets. Sell them or give them away. It's pretty easy to get a free rooster since some city ordinances prohibit raising them. Some may kill them, but I doubt that's common in small scale farming. Seems like a waste.
The idea you're trying to tease out is the idea that enough clean hands eventually clean a dirty deed - similar to saying if you bought stolen property, it becomes okay, so long as it has been sold enough times since the original theft.
No matter how the one person raising chickens does, somewhere in the chain there is a requirement for large numbers of roosters being disposed of.
About the only way one could begin to approach doing it cleanly from a vegan moral standpoint would probably be to use some kind of sex selecting in vitro fertilization so that the extra males aren't created in the first place.
0 -
So by one means or another, the extra males are being killed.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.
Those who do it "humanely"....what are they doing with the male chicks??? While using local farms that treat the chickens well is a step in the right direction IMO...it isn't exactly cruelty free if one does not know the answer to that question.
Full disclosure. I currently eat eggs. It is my goal to become vegan, but I am not there yet. However the issue of the destruction of male chicks in the process of produce hens for eggs is one of the main reasons. Right now I source where my eggs come from and feel as I said above, it is a step in the right direction, but if I want to eat a cruelty free diet, it is not the final step.
It varies. Let the male chicks grow to adulthood then eat them. Some are kept as protectors for the hens or as pets. Sell them or give them away. It's pretty easy to get a free rooster since some city ordinances prohibit raising them. Some may kill them, but I doubt that's common in small scale farming. Seems like a waste.
The idea you're trying to tease out is the idea that enough clean hands eventually clean a dirty deed - similar to saying if you bought stolen property, it becomes okay, so long as it has been sold enough times since the original theft.
No matter how the one person raising chickens does, somewhere in the chain there is a requirement for large numbers of roosters being disposed of.
About the only way one could begin to approach doing it cleanly from a vegan moral standpoint would probably be to use some kind of sex selecting in vitro fertilization so that the extra males aren't created in the first place.
That seems completely silly to me. Are vegans against owning purebread animals as pets because of mistreatment in puppy mills? Are they against eating plants and food made from plants that are grown at the detriment to animals (deforestation, for example)? Is there a food industry practice for which all hands are clean?
By one means or another all chickens will die.1 -
I'd say a number of vegans (sorry if I seem to speak for others - I'm not even a full time vegetarian) do disapprove of purebreeding practices in animals, not just because puppy mill exist, but also because they discourage people from adopting the already excessive pet population that exist at shelters, and because purebreeding causes suffering from the inbred genetic traits some lines cause.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So by one means or another, the extra males are being killed.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.
Those who do it "humanely"....what are they doing with the male chicks??? While using local farms that treat the chickens well is a step in the right direction IMO...it isn't exactly cruelty free if one does not know the answer to that question.
Full disclosure. I currently eat eggs. It is my goal to become vegan, but I am not there yet. However the issue of the destruction of male chicks in the process of produce hens for eggs is one of the main reasons. Right now I source where my eggs come from and feel as I said above, it is a step in the right direction, but if I want to eat a cruelty free diet, it is not the final step.
It varies. Let the male chicks grow to adulthood then eat them. Some are kept as protectors for the hens or as pets. Sell them or give them away. It's pretty easy to get a free rooster since some city ordinances prohibit raising them. Some may kill them, but I doubt that's common in small scale farming. Seems like a waste.
The idea you're trying to tease out is the idea that enough clean hands eventually clean a dirty deed - similar to saying if you bought stolen property, it becomes okay, so long as it has been sold enough times since the original theft.
No matter how the one person raising chickens does, somewhere in the chain there is a requirement for large numbers of roosters being disposed of.
About the only way one could begin to approach doing it cleanly from a vegan moral standpoint would probably be to use some kind of sex selecting in vitro fertilization so that the extra males aren't created in the first place.
That seems completely silly to me. Are vegans against owning purebread animals as pets because of mistreatment in puppy mills? Are they against eating plants and food made from plants that are grown at the detriment to animals (deforestation, for example)? Is there a food industry practice for which all hands are clean?
By one means or another all chickens will die.
I'd venture many vegans do prefer their food come from sources that don't cause deforestation where possible. I'd say that is one of the points of veganism - reduced farm land usage by directly consuming plants instead of growing plants to feed to animals.
I don't think vegans claim to be perfect. Obviously almost any food one buys commercially is going to involve destroying insects, rodents, and other pests. It doesn't mean one lets the perfect be the enemy of the good.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So by one means or another, the extra males are being killed.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.
Those who do it "humanely"....what are they doing with the male chicks??? While using local farms that treat the chickens well is a step in the right direction IMO...it isn't exactly cruelty free if one does not know the answer to that question.
Full disclosure. I currently eat eggs. It is my goal to become vegan, but I am not there yet. However the issue of the destruction of male chicks in the process of produce hens for eggs is one of the main reasons. Right now I source where my eggs come from and feel as I said above, it is a step in the right direction, but if I want to eat a cruelty free diet, it is not the final step.
It varies. Let the male chicks grow to adulthood then eat them. Some are kept as protectors for the hens or as pets. Sell them or give them away. It's pretty easy to get a free rooster since some city ordinances prohibit raising them. Some may kill them, but I doubt that's common in small scale farming. Seems like a waste.
The idea you're trying to tease out is the idea that enough clean hands eventually clean a dirty deed - similar to saying if you bought stolen property, it becomes okay, so long as it has been sold enough times since the original theft.
No matter how the one person raising chickens does, somewhere in the chain there is a requirement for large numbers of roosters being disposed of.
About the only way one could begin to approach doing it cleanly from a vegan moral standpoint would probably be to use some kind of sex selecting in vitro fertilization so that the extra males aren't created in the first place.
That seems completely silly to me. Are vegans against owning purebread animals as pets because of mistreatment in puppy mills? Are they against eating plants and food made from plants that are grown at the detriment to animals (deforestation, for example)? Is there a food industry practice for which all hands are clean?
By one means or another all chickens will die.
What seems silly to you is an ethical choice by another to eat humanely.
Seems more arbitrary than ethical.0 -
One could say the same about someone giving money to a homeless person on the street instead of mailing the money to an entire starving village in another country. I'd just say giving is ethical, and be concerned about animal welfare is ethical. The arbitrary comes in from believing the ethics are meant to be imposed on others, so that someone might force you to not give money to a homeless person, or might show up to take your chickens, which most people aren't really interested in doing to anyone.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So by one means or another, the extra males are being killed.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.
Those who do it "humanely"....what are they doing with the male chicks??? While using local farms that treat the chickens well is a step in the right direction IMO...it isn't exactly cruelty free if one does not know the answer to that question.
Full disclosure. I currently eat eggs. It is my goal to become vegan, but I am not there yet. However the issue of the destruction of male chicks in the process of produce hens for eggs is one of the main reasons. Right now I source where my eggs come from and feel as I said above, it is a step in the right direction, but if I want to eat a cruelty free diet, it is not the final step.
It varies. Let the male chicks grow to adulthood then eat them. Some are kept as protectors for the hens or as pets. Sell them or give them away. It's pretty easy to get a free rooster since some city ordinances prohibit raising them. Some may kill them, but I doubt that's common in small scale farming. Seems like a waste.
The idea you're trying to tease out is the idea that enough clean hands eventually clean a dirty deed - similar to saying if you bought stolen property, it becomes okay, so long as it has been sold enough times since the original theft.
No matter how the one person raising chickens does, somewhere in the chain there is a requirement for large numbers of roosters being disposed of.
About the only way one could begin to approach doing it cleanly from a vegan moral standpoint would probably be to use some kind of sex selecting in vitro fertilization so that the extra males aren't created in the first place.
That seems completely silly to me. Are vegans against owning purebread animals as pets because of mistreatment in puppy mills? Are they against eating plants and food made from plants that are grown at the detriment to animals (deforestation, for example)? Is there a food industry practice for which all hands are clean?
By one means or another all chickens will die.
What seems silly to you is an ethical choice by another to eat humanely.
Seems more arbitrary than ethical.0 -
One could say the same about someone giving money to a homeless person on the street instead of mailing the money to an entire starving village in another country. I'd just say giving is ethical, and be concerned about animal welfare is ethical. The arbitrary comes in from believing the ethics are meant to be imposed on others, so that someone might force you to not give money to a homeless person, or might show up to take your chickens, which most people aren't really interested in doing to anyone.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So by one means or another, the extra males are being killed.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.
Those who do it "humanely"....what are they doing with the male chicks??? While using local farms that treat the chickens well is a step in the right direction IMO...it isn't exactly cruelty free if one does not know the answer to that question.
Full disclosure. I currently eat eggs. It is my goal to become vegan, but I am not there yet. However the issue of the destruction of male chicks in the process of produce hens for eggs is one of the main reasons. Right now I source where my eggs come from and feel as I said above, it is a step in the right direction, but if I want to eat a cruelty free diet, it is not the final step.
It varies. Let the male chicks grow to adulthood then eat them. Some are kept as protectors for the hens or as pets. Sell them or give them away. It's pretty easy to get a free rooster since some city ordinances prohibit raising them. Some may kill them, but I doubt that's common in small scale farming. Seems like a waste.
The idea you're trying to tease out is the idea that enough clean hands eventually clean a dirty deed - similar to saying if you bought stolen property, it becomes okay, so long as it has been sold enough times since the original theft.
No matter how the one person raising chickens does, somewhere in the chain there is a requirement for large numbers of roosters being disposed of.
About the only way one could begin to approach doing it cleanly from a vegan moral standpoint would probably be to use some kind of sex selecting in vitro fertilization so that the extra males aren't created in the first place.
That seems completely silly to me. Are vegans against owning purebread animals as pets because of mistreatment in puppy mills? Are they against eating plants and food made from plants that are grown at the detriment to animals (deforestation, for example)? Is there a food industry practice for which all hands are clean?
By one means or another all chickens will die.
What seems silly to you is an ethical choice by another to eat humanely.
Seems more arbitrary than ethical.
Would it make sense or be ethical not to give the homeless person money because a whole village is starving elsewhere?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
One could say the same about someone giving money to a homeless person on the street instead of mailing the money to an entire starving village in another country. I'd just say giving is ethical, and be concerned about animal welfare is ethical. The arbitrary comes in from believing the ethics are meant to be imposed on others, so that someone might force you to not give money to a homeless person, or might show up to take your chickens, which most people aren't really interested in doing to anyone.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So by one means or another, the extra males are being killed.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
Even with a pampered back yard flock, for every laying hen, there is a little boy chick who is either killed immediately after hatching or as a young and very fat rooster, minus the few fancy guys who become the dads.
This isn't true. Hens will lays eggs even if hens are all you have. You won't get baby chicks without a rooster but you will get eggs.
It is absolutely true, unless you have hens that will live and lay forever. At some point you will have to replace them, if you intend to have eggs. And you will have to deal with the roosters.
I'm not following you. If all I ever have is hens, why will I ever have to deal with a rooster and why will a little boy chick be killed?? Is there some cosmic force that kills a baby boy chicks every time a hen starts laying?
The eggs are not the problem. Your hens are mortal. When you replace them you will need to allow a clutch of eggs to be fertilized. They will hatch. 50% can become replacement layers but 50% will be roosters. You will need to kill them cage them or let them kill each other and the hens while you are at it because some are hen killers. Most of your hens likely had a brother that died. To a vegan that blood is still on your hands because you paid support to that system.
All chickens die. As with the previous poster to which I replied you seem to be talking about common large scale commercial chicken raising practices, which I get. But not supporting those who humanely raise chickens for egg or meat proliferates the large scale commercial practices. Some say I'm not eating any eggs because these people mistreat chickens to get eggs. Others say I'm going to support those who do it humanely. One helps ensure those that raise chickens humanely can continue to do so, one does not.
Those who do it "humanely"....what are they doing with the male chicks??? While using local farms that treat the chickens well is a step in the right direction IMO...it isn't exactly cruelty free if one does not know the answer to that question.
Full disclosure. I currently eat eggs. It is my goal to become vegan, but I am not there yet. However the issue of the destruction of male chicks in the process of produce hens for eggs is one of the main reasons. Right now I source where my eggs come from and feel as I said above, it is a step in the right direction, but if I want to eat a cruelty free diet, it is not the final step.
It varies. Let the male chicks grow to adulthood then eat them. Some are kept as protectors for the hens or as pets. Sell them or give them away. It's pretty easy to get a free rooster since some city ordinances prohibit raising them. Some may kill them, but I doubt that's common in small scale farming. Seems like a waste.
The idea you're trying to tease out is the idea that enough clean hands eventually clean a dirty deed - similar to saying if you bought stolen property, it becomes okay, so long as it has been sold enough times since the original theft.
No matter how the one person raising chickens does, somewhere in the chain there is a requirement for large numbers of roosters being disposed of.
About the only way one could begin to approach doing it cleanly from a vegan moral standpoint would probably be to use some kind of sex selecting in vitro fertilization so that the extra males aren't created in the first place.
That seems completely silly to me. Are vegans against owning purebread animals as pets because of mistreatment in puppy mills? Are they against eating plants and food made from plants that are grown at the detriment to animals (deforestation, for example)? Is there a food industry practice for which all hands are clean?
By one means or another all chickens will die.
What seems silly to you is an ethical choice by another to eat humanely.
Seems more arbitrary than ethical.
Would it make sense or be ethical not to give the homeless person money because a whole village is starving elsewhere?
It is for an individual to decide. I'm not complaining about a person who gives to either, just as I'm not complaining about a vegetarian that does or does not avoid small scale, ethically treated chicken eggs. I still consider both givings a moral good but not necessity, and I consider both the vegan and egg eating vegetarian as doing a moral good but not necessity. They all make enough sense to me as something worth a person doing if it is what they want to do. Since none of them involve someone forcing another person to do the same, I don't see why anyone else needs to see it as something needing to be justified as a moral outlook for one's self.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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