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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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: »
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 -
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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.
-
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.
-
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: »
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: »
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 -
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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 -
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
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions