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
-
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.
Just to be clear--I am not a vegan, so I agree with your earlier contention that there is no moral problem whatsoever with raising happy animals and then harvesting them humanely as needed, even though it is sad. I am just explaining why a true vegan (someone who goes out of their way to avoid ALL materials involved in animal exploitation, even the red dye that comes from bugs) would find it to be unacceptable for them, if still laudable for the non-vegan. I am also in the interesting position of helping to run a vegan-friendly 100% organic community garden, so have to think carefully through fertilizers that don't violate either philosophy. Not easy!
I agree, killing chicks is a huge waste, but to explain the reason behind it, so many male chicks are killed because the breeds used for laying are not the greatest for packing on the lbs efficiently for slaughter--Cornish Cross are the dominate slaughter breed, and they get so heavy many can't even walk at the end. But (to take it back to your backyard flock) just the fact that you are producing (or supporting the production of) 50% of your animals that WILL be killed, even if you "send them off to to the farm," is unacceptable to a true vegan.
I think that the compassionate treatment of your flock would raise you higher in the estimation of most vegans, but this is the reason why eggs are excluded from the vegan diet, even from the very nicest flocks.
You asked about pets above, and although every vegan I know has pets, I am not sure how they are excluded from the animal exploitation rubric. There's a stronger case for pets from a rescue situation, but even then you can make the case that it is still supporting unscrupulous/careless breeders, because you are still creating demand. This gets into animal rights. I've had militants pull their cars over to the side of the road and start screaming at me for horseback riding, presumably because the horse was "enslaved." Naturally it was very disturbing and abusive for the horses to be screamed at.
I've had these discussion with my daughter as well. She has two very nice show rabbits, and she would like to breed them, and I have to point out, between the rabbits that end up at the shelter and the rabbits that go to the "kill buyer" at rabbit shows, I cannot in good conscience support any breeding in my household. However, she has figured out my soft spot with French Angoras, as I am am a yarn fanatic. Fiber animals (angoras, llamas, sheep, etc.) are the only situation that I can think of where you have a compelling economic reason to keep both the males and the females and maintain them for life as productive members of the household. Still, the fact that they are being sheared (sheep/llamas), castrated (rams>>wethers), milked (sheep) or caged (rabbits) would likely be problematic for a true vegan.
Any of the vegans out there, feel free to chime in.0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »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.
Just to be clear--I am not a vegan, so I agree with your earlier contention that there is no moral problem whatsoever with raising happy animals and then harvesting them humanely as needed, even though it is sad. I am just explaining why a true vegan (someone who goes out of their way to avoid ALL materials involved in animal exploitation, even the red dye that comes from bugs) would find it to be unacceptable for them, if still laudable for the non-vegan. I am also in the interesting position of helping to run a vegan-friendly 100% organic community garden, so have to think carefully through fertilizers that don't violate either philosophy. Not easy!
I agree, killing chicks is a huge waste, but to explain the reason behind it, so many male chicks are killed because the breeds used for laying are not the greatest for packing on the lbs efficiently for slaughter--Cornish Cross are the dominate slaughter breed, and they get so heavy many can't even walk at the end. But (to take it back to your backyard flock) just the fact that you are producing (or supporting the production of) 50% of your animals that WILL be killed, even if you "send them off to to the farm," is unacceptable to a true vegan.
I think that the compassionate treatment of your flock would raise you higher in the estimation of most vegans, but this is the reason why eggs are excluded from the vegan diet, even from the very nicest flocks.
You asked about pets above, and although every vegan I know has pets, I am not sure how they are excluded from the animal exploitation rubric. There's a stronger case for pets from a rescue situation, but even then you can make the case that it is still supporting unscrupulous/careless breeders, because you are still creating demand. This gets into animal rights. I've had militants pull their cars over to the side of the road and start screaming at me for horseback riding, presumably because the horse was "enslaved." Naturally it was very disturbing and abusive for the horses to be screamed at.
I've had these discussion with my daughter as well. She has two very nice show rabbits, and she would like to breed them, and I have to point out, between the rabbits that end up at the shelter and the rabbits that go to the "kill buyer" at rabbit shows, I cannot in good conscience support any breeding in my household. However, she has figured out my soft spot with French Angoras, as I am am a yarn fanatic. Fiber animals (angoras, llamas, sheep, etc.) are the only situation that I can think of where you have a compelling economic reason to keep both the males and the females and maintain them for life as productive members of the household. Still, the fact that they are being sheared (sheep/llamas), castrated (rams>>wethers), milked (sheep) or caged (rabbits) would likely be problematic for a true vegan.
Any of the vegans out there, feel free to chime in.
So, yeah, arbitrary.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.
I don't see any of it as being doing any good for anyone other the person that feels better about themselves, but it is important to feel good about yourself I suppose.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »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.
Just to be clear--I am not a vegan, so I agree with your earlier contention that there is no moral problem whatsoever with raising happy animals and then harvesting them humanely as needed, even though it is sad. I am just explaining why a true vegan (someone who goes out of their way to avoid ALL materials involved in animal exploitation, even the red dye that comes from bugs) would find it to be unacceptable for them, if still laudable for the non-vegan. I am also in the interesting position of helping to run a vegan-friendly 100% organic community garden, so have to think carefully through fertilizers that don't violate either philosophy. Not easy!
I agree, killing chicks is a huge waste, but to explain the reason behind it, so many male chicks are killed because the breeds used for laying are not the greatest for packing on the lbs efficiently for slaughter--Cornish Cross are the dominate slaughter breed, and they get so heavy many can't even walk at the end. But (to take it back to your backyard flock) just the fact that you are producing (or supporting the production of) 50% of your animals that WILL be killed, even if you "send them off to to the farm," is unacceptable to a true vegan.
I think that the compassionate treatment of your flock would raise you higher in the estimation of most vegans, but this is the reason why eggs are excluded from the vegan diet, even from the very nicest flocks.
You asked about pets above, and although every vegan I know has pets, I am not sure how they are excluded from the animal exploitation rubric. There's a stronger case for pets from a rescue situation, but even then you can make the case that it is still supporting unscrupulous/careless breeders, because you are still creating demand. This gets into animal rights. I've had militants pull their cars over to the side of the road and start screaming at me for horseback riding, presumably because the horse was "enslaved." Naturally it was very disturbing and abusive for the horses to be screamed at.
I've had these discussion with my daughter as well. She has two very nice show rabbits, and she would like to breed them, and I have to point out, between the rabbits that end up at the shelter and the rabbits that go to the "kill buyer" at rabbit shows, I cannot in good conscience support any breeding in my household. However, she has figured out my soft spot with French Angoras, as I am am a yarn fanatic. Fiber animals (angoras, llamas, sheep, etc.) are the only situation that I can think of where you have a compelling economic reason to keep both the males and the females and maintain them for life as productive members of the household. Still, the fact that they are being sheared (sheep/llamas), castrated (rams>>wethers), milked (sheep) or caged (rabbits) would likely be problematic for a true vegan.
Any of the vegans out there, feel free to chime in.
So, yeah, arbitrary.
Well.....all I can say about that is, don't ask a vegan to dig too far into how their cruelty-free organic vegetables are grown and protected from predators. Because I can 100% assure you they are not being nurtured with kelp meal and fairy unicorn dust, as is our community garden, both of which are very expensive and result in piss-poor yields. My organic garden at home is a veritable abattoir of fish meal, plus "organic fertilizer" consisting of blood meal, bone meal and feather meal, plus bags of composted manure from god knows what horrifying feedlot.
I think Hindu Brahmins, who are supposed to be vegetarian, believe that all the blood/bad karma accrues to you if you use products of animal mistreatment (don't ask me to cite the source in the Vedas--far from my area of expertise) but it would seem like what is used in the soil would accrue as well, if the blood of extraneous male chicks accrues to an egg eater.
edit: changed Brahmins to vegetarian, not vegan.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
jmbmilholland wrote: »[Well.....all I can say about that is, don't ask a vegan to dig too far into how their cruelty-free organic vegetables are grown and protected from predators. Because I can 100% assure you they are not being nurtured with kelp meal and fairy unicorn dust, as is our community garden, both of which are very expensive and result in piss-poor yields. My organic garden at home is a veritable abattoir of fish meal, plus "organic fertilizer" consisting of blood meal, bone meal and feather meal, plus bags of composted manure from god knows what horrifying feedlot.
I think Hindu Brahmins, who are supposed to be vegetarian, believe that all the blood/bad karma accrues to you if you use products of animal mistreatment (don't ask me to cite the source in the Vedas--far from my area of expertise) but it would seem like what is used in the soil would accrue as well, if the blood of extraneous male chicks accrues to an egg eater.
edit: changed Brahmins to vegetarian, not vegan.
This may be a bit off topic, but we have a friend who has a huge vegetable garden. He uses those motion-sensing water sprayers to keep the deer and rabbits out. Do you think that would be considered acceptable by vegans? I wonder...
(btw, thanks for your thoughtful & informative replies, I enjoy reading them)
0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »[Well.....all I can say about that is, don't ask a vegan to dig too far into how their cruelty-free organic vegetables are grown and protected from predators. Because I can 100% assure you they are not being nurtured with kelp meal and fairy unicorn dust, as is our community garden, both of which are very expensive and result in piss-poor yields. My organic garden at home is a veritable abattoir of fish meal, plus "organic fertilizer" consisting of blood meal, bone meal and feather meal, plus bags of composted manure from god knows what horrifying feedlot.
I think Hindu Brahmins, who are supposed to be vegetarian, believe that all the blood/bad karma accrues to you if you use products of animal mistreatment (don't ask me to cite the source in the Vedas--far from my area of expertise) but it would seem like what is used in the soil would accrue as well, if the blood of extraneous male chicks accrues to an egg eater.
edit: changed Brahmins to vegetarian, not vegan.
This may be a bit off topic, but we have a friend who has a huge vegetable garden. He uses those motion-sensing water sprayers to keep the deer and rabbits out. Do you think that would be considered acceptable by vegans? I wonder...
(btw, thanks for your thoughtful & informative replies, I enjoy reading them)
My compost is mostly chicken poo and hay so I guess I fertilize my garden with the blood of dead roosters.
Why is water spray more/less acceptable than a fence?0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »[Well.....all I can say about that is, don't ask a vegan to dig too far into how their cruelty-free organic vegetables are grown and protected from predators. Because I can 100% assure you they are not being nurtured with kelp meal and fairy unicorn dust, as is our community garden, both of which are very expensive and result in piss-poor yields. My organic garden at home is a veritable abattoir of fish meal, plus "organic fertilizer" consisting of blood meal, bone meal and feather meal, plus bags of composted manure from god knows what horrifying feedlot.
I think Hindu Brahmins, who are supposed to be vegetarian, believe that all the blood/bad karma accrues to you if you use products of animal mistreatment (don't ask me to cite the source in the Vedas--far from my area of expertise) but it would seem like what is used in the soil would accrue as well, if the blood of extraneous male chicks accrues to an egg eater.
edit: changed Brahmins to vegetarian, not vegan.
This may be a bit off topic, but we have a friend who has a huge vegetable garden. He uses those motion-sensing water sprayers to keep the deer and rabbits out. Do you think that would be considered acceptable by vegans? I wonder...
(btw, thanks for your thoughtful & informative replies, I enjoy reading them)
It would definitely be vegan friendly. Has he said how effective it is? We don't have the budget for something like that, so we are feeding a variety of very fat and sassy critters, including a beautiful 8 point buck, but they just like the fanciest and most tasty plants...not eggplants! The garden is in the city though so he is safe. At home we have a dog. Thank you for your kind words. I am generally lurking and enjoying the thoughts of others so it is nice to be able to make an occasional contribution.
1 -
I really wish I could be vegan, but my natural aversion to vegetables makes it unsustainable for me. I am learning to fit SOME veggies into my diet, but I could never eat enough of them to be a vegan....So I just deal with the guilt of eating meat & dairy.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't see any of it as being doing any good for anyone other the person that feels better about themselves, but it is important to feel good about yourself I suppose.
You don't see any good in giving to homeless people, starving villages, or reducing animal product use that has environmental costs?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't see any of it as being doing any good for anyone other the person that feels better about themselves, but it is important to feel good about yourself I suppose.
You don't see any good in giving to homeless people, starving villages, or reducing animal product use that has environmental costs?
Sorry, I was talking only about the food, not the homeless people. But no, I don't think being vegan changes commercial practices re: animals one bit. I think choosing to support humane raising of animals for food probably does more good.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't see any of it as being doing any good for anyone other the person that feels better about themselves, but it is important to feel good about yourself I suppose.
You don't see any good in giving to homeless people, starving villages, or reducing animal product use that has environmental costs?
Sorry, I was talking only about the food, not the homeless people. But no, I don't think being vegan changes commercial practices re: animals one bit. I think choosing to support humane raising of animals for food probably does more good.
So if one chooses to be vegan and not consume or purchase ANY animal products it does NO good. However if one decides to support humane killing of animals for food that does MORE good. Ahh, we have finally actually found something that is absolutely silly. If you want to help more animals then agree to be nicer to them and then slaughter them. Silliness.
BTW, I am arguing the fallacy in the argument not the food choices some wish to make. I focus solely on what I put on my plate and don't concern myself with what other people put on their plates.
If we are talking about changing meat production practices, then yes, absolutely those that choose the better method do more toward change than those that choose no meat.0 -
I think shifting food fads can do a lot of damage both to the environment and to the ecosystem trying to keep up. Think what happened to some breeds of dogs when they got popular (Dalmation, Boxer, Cocker Spaniel, Collie, Irish Setter, German Shepherd, Doberman). Imagine how difficult it was on horses when we switched to motorized transport.
http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access 30 - 02 - Horse Power.pdf
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/hsp/soaiv_07_ch10.pdf
http://enviroliteracy.org/environment-society/transportation/the-horse-the-urban-environment/0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there is a chick in an unfertilized egg. I certainly haven't.
I'm talking about male chicks hatched from eggs. Since there is no way to only hatch eggs containing females, hatcheries must decide what to do with the male chicks that hatch. These chicks are "culled," killed after hatching.
I don't know about the specifics of how you obtained your chickens (were they purchased from hatcheries or obtained from rescue organizations?), what happens to them when they can no longer lay eggs, or any other specifics. I don't remember saying that it *does* do any harm when you eat their eggs. Why would I make a blanket statement like that?
What I did say is that the harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks. Commercial operations have to slaughter "spent" hens, often keep laying hens in inhumane conditions, and cull male chicks. Some small operations and hobby farmers may contribute to these practices in how they source their hens or deal with "spent" hens. Others may not, if they maintain their flock through hatching their own eggs (or getting chickens from someplace that does and doesn't cull), care for retired layers, and support any roosters for their lives.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
But chickens don't live forever. Eventually the flock will need to be replenished if you want to continue to have eggs. This means getting chicks or chickens from someone. And what are they doing with the males?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't see any of it as being doing any good for anyone other the person that feels better about themselves, but it is important to feel good about yourself I suppose.
You don't see any good in giving to homeless people, starving villages, or reducing animal product use that has environmental costs?
Sorry, I was talking only about the food, not the homeless people. But no, I don't think being vegan changes commercial practices re: animals one bit. I think choosing to support humane raising of animals for food probably does more good.
So if one chooses to be vegan and not consume or purchase ANY animal products it does NO good. However if one decides to support humane killing of animals for food that does MORE good. Ahh, we have finally actually found something that is absolutely silly. If you want to help more animals then agree to be nicer to them and then slaughter them. Silliness.
BTW, I am arguing the fallacy in the argument not the food choices some wish to make. I focus solely on what I put on my plate and don't concern myself with what other people put on their plates.
If we are talking about changing meat production practices, then yes, absolutely those that choose the better method do more toward change than those that choose no meat.
Couldn't disagree more. Humane death is still death. But happily, we are all allowed our opinions that form how and what we choose to eat. If we are stating them as fact, then citation to support that please.
Oh I agree. Some statistics on how vegans are changing commercial meat practices for the better would be great to see!0 -
Let's think about this mathematically.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
If we are talking about changing meat production practices, then yes, absolutely those that choose the better method do more toward change than those that choose no meat.
1. A vegan eats no chicken, thus no chicken is commercially, locally, or ever in any ways raised to satisfy that need.
2. Another person eats 1 chicken that is commercially raised with no regard for the animal.
3. Another person eats 2 chickens raised locally by a person who hugs the chickens daily because the person has chickens that actually like hugs and produce more eggs that way, whatever. It's a hypothetical magical chicken. Still, at the end of this, it is killed.
Your contention is #3 is more ethical than 1 or 2? That even though no one is raising chickens for scenario 1, there is still somehow cruelty in nonanimal existence because there is no need to satisfy, than there is scenario 3 where someone is paying people for more ethically grown food?
I mean I get how on first thought, one could think that money represents influence grower methods, but... spending nothing also influences producers to.
I mean, the follow through on this is that I'm doing the most humane thing if I switch to an all chicken diet, just make sure it is all ethically treated chicken because I'm maximizing the number of ethically treated (and killed and eaten) chickens in existence.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!
I lost 40 pounds over the last year. My doctor says I'm in great health, I feel great, and I'm consistently setting PRs in my running.
I never had to make a choice. And who is saying one should eat legumes alone?0 -
no_russian wrote: »I tried the vegan thing but a lot of vegan foods are loaded with sodium. Switched to pescatarian
The fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans that form the majority of my diet are virtually sodium-free. I can add salt to them, but vegans -- just like non-vegans -- can control how much sodium they eat.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I don't see any of it as being doing any good for anyone other the person that feels better about themselves, but it is important to feel good about yourself I suppose.
You don't see any good in giving to homeless people, starving villages, or reducing animal product use that has environmental costs?
Sorry, I was talking only about the food, not the homeless people. But no, I don't think being vegan changes commercial practices re: animals one bit. I think choosing to support humane raising of animals for food probably does more good.
Do you think there is ever a value in refusing to participate in something you consider unjust?
0 -
So if one chooses to be vegan and not consume or purchase ANY animal products it does NO good. However if one decides to support humane killing of animals for food that does MORE good. Ahh, we have finally actually found something that is absolutely silly. If you want to help more animals then agree to be nicer to them and then slaughter them. Silliness.
BTW, I am arguing the fallacy in the argument not the food choices some wish to make. I focus solely on what I put on my plate and don't concern myself with what other people put on their plates. [/quote]
If we are talking about changing meat production practices, then yes, absolutely those that choose the better method do more toward change than those that choose no meat. [/quote]
Rather than an either/or proposition, I would suggest both are a necessary critique of the system. Both cut off funding to the factory farming system, and both raise an important voice in fighting against an inhumane system. I am not vegan, but I have certainly been influenced by vegan philosophy and admire their discipline--just like I am not Catholic, but I admire the Franciscan brothers walking around town in their bare feet (or sandals in the winter) and admit it is a laudable standard, but one that I could never meet, and as a Lutheran feel no moral obligation to meet.
I think that what Need2 is getting at is, the industry would feel no obligation to address the concerns of a vegan, because they will never buy their product and are a "lost cause" from an economic perspective, while they will (slowly, grudgingly) respond to meat eaters who are concerned (and who vote with their dollars at places like Chipotle, that make an effort to source more humane meats).
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there is a chick in an unfertilized egg. I certainly haven't.
I'm talking about male chicks hatched from eggs. Since there is no way to only hatch eggs containing females, hatcheries must decide what to do with the male chicks that hatch. These chicks are "culled," killed after hatching.
I don't know about the specifics of how you obtained your chickens (were they purchased from hatcheries or obtained from rescue organizations?), what happens to them when they can no longer lay eggs, or any other specifics. I don't remember saying that it *does* do any harm when you eat their eggs. Why would I make a blanket statement like that?
What I did say is that the harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks. Commercial operations have to slaughter "spent" hens, often keep laying hens in inhumane conditions, and cull male chicks. Some small operations and hobby farmers may contribute to these practices in how they source their hens or deal with "spent" hens. Others may not, if they maintain their flock through hatching their own eggs (or getting chickens from someplace that does and doesn't cull), care for retired layers, and support any roosters for their lives.
The most common practices for hens that no longer lay among family farms seems to be either eating them, keeping them as pets, or sell/give them away. Some will give them away with the provision that they are not killed for food, but naturally there is no binding contract on that and I suspect most of them do get eaten. We eat ours as we do most of the roosters.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
jmbmilholland wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »[Well.....all I can say about that is, don't ask a vegan to dig too far into how their cruelty-free organic vegetables are grown and protected from predators. Because I can 100% assure you they are not being nurtured with kelp meal and fairy unicorn dust, as is our community garden, both of which are very expensive and result in piss-poor yields. My organic garden at home is a veritable abattoir of fish meal, plus "organic fertilizer" consisting of blood meal, bone meal and feather meal, plus bags of composted manure from god knows what horrifying feedlot.
I think Hindu Brahmins, who are supposed to be vegetarian, believe that all the blood/bad karma accrues to you if you use products of animal mistreatment (don't ask me to cite the source in the Vedas--far from my area of expertise) but it would seem like what is used in the soil would accrue as well, if the blood of extraneous male chicks accrues to an egg eater.
edit: changed Brahmins to vegetarian, not vegan.
This may be a bit off topic, but we have a friend who has a huge vegetable garden. He uses those motion-sensing water sprayers to keep the deer and rabbits out. Do you think that would be considered acceptable by vegans? I wonder...
(btw, thanks for your thoughtful & informative replies, I enjoy reading them)
It would definitely be vegan friendly. Has he said how effective it is? We don't have the budget for something like that, so we are feeding a variety of very fat and sassy critters, including a beautiful 8 point buck, but they just like the fanciest and most tasty plants...not eggplants! The garden is in the city though so he is safe. At home we have a dog. Thank you for your kind words. I am generally lurking and enjoying the thoughts of others so it is nice to be able to make an occasional contribution.
Oh, he says it scares the hell out of them. But he doesn't use pesticides so his veggies, while voluminous, are often wormy and the leaves have holes, etc. He tosses those aside for compost. Brooks no nonsense. He's an old guy - mid-80's (still rocking a vast garden!)
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?
The harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks.
Again though, you are talking about commercial farming practices which is a reason not to eat commercially farmed eggs/meat, but not a reason to think eating eggs/meat is morally wrong. There is no chick in an unfertilized egg.
So, lets be more specific. How about the chickens running around in my yard. They have ample food and clean water, treats, several acres to peck around on (though they don't wander far from their coop). They are well protected from extreme weather/temperatures and predators. What harm is there in my eating their eggs?
And even the chickens that we kill for food live the same carefree pampered life until it's time to process them. I can see the argument that we shouldn't kill them at all but that has nothing to do with commercial poultry farms.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there is a chick in an unfertilized egg. I certainly haven't.
I'm talking about male chicks hatched from eggs. Since there is no way to only hatch eggs containing females, hatcheries must decide what to do with the male chicks that hatch. These chicks are "culled," killed after hatching.
I don't know about the specifics of how you obtained your chickens (were they purchased from hatcheries or obtained from rescue organizations?), what happens to them when they can no longer lay eggs, or any other specifics. I don't remember saying that it *does* do any harm when you eat their eggs. Why would I make a blanket statement like that?
What I did say is that the harm in eggs comes from the harm that is done to laying hens and male chicks. Commercial operations have to slaughter "spent" hens, often keep laying hens in inhumane conditions, and cull male chicks. Some small operations and hobby farmers may contribute to these practices in how they source their hens or deal with "spent" hens. Others may not, if they maintain their flock through hatching their own eggs (or getting chickens from someplace that does and doesn't cull), care for retired layers, and support any roosters for their lives.
The most common practices for hens that no longer lay among family farms seems to be either eating them, keeping them as pets, or sell/give them away. Some will give them away with the provision that they are not killed for food, but naturally there is no binding contract on that and I suspect most of them do get eaten. We eat ours as we do most of the roosters.
If that is the most common practice, it should help you understand why vegans don't consider family farming a harm-free practice. If you practice it yourself, that should answer your question as to what harm is done when you eat eggs.
I understand you may not see it as harm, but for a vegan, this would be considered harm.0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »
Rather than an either/or proposition, I would suggest both are a necessary critique of the system. Both cut off funding to the factory farming system, and both raise an important voice in fighting against an inhumane system. I am not vegan, but I have certainly been influenced by vegan philosophy and admire their discipline--just like I am not Catholic, but I admire the Franciscan brothers walking around town in their bare feet (or sandals in the winter) and admit it is a laudable standard, but one that I could never meet, and as a Lutheran feel no moral obligation to meet.
I think that what Need2 is getting at is, the industry would feel no obligation to address the concerns of a vegan, because they will never buy their product and are a "lost cause" from an economic perspective, while they will (slowly, grudgingly) respond to meat eaters who are concerned (and who vote with their dollars at places like Chipotle, that make an effort to source more humane meats).
I don't disagree with that. However, it doesn't make my or anyone else's dietary choice arbitrary or silliness.
I never said anyone's dietary choice was silliness.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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions