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.
Has a documentary ever influenced you to eat more plant based?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
I fully agree with you.
Not all farms are as cruel as some people think as well. (Local farms are generally kind to their livestock.)
Even some plants, fruits and vegetable are not actually healthy. (Bananas have high chances of disease if not protected.)
I think your definition of "kind" must vary substantially from mine.1 -
Nope, never. Some are interesting too see and learn about different viewpoints, but I'll eat what I want regardless.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
I fully agree with you.
Not all farms are as cruel as some people think as well. (Local farms are generally kind to their livestock.)
Even some plants, fruits and vegetable are not actually healthy. (Bananas have high chances of disease if not protected.)
I think your definition of "kind" must vary substantially from mine.
Do you believe that kindness and exploitation are mutually exclusive?1 -
I was greatly influenced by Michael Pollen's "The Omnivore's Dilemma," his other books and articles, and to a lesser extent, possibly because I watched it subsequently, "Food, Inc."
I saw "Food, Inc." in a theater, so must have read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" shortly after it came out in 2006, and it has had a lasting influence on me.
I do eat meat, but try to be more educated and conscious about my choices.
https://smile.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/1594200823/
@lemurcat2 interested in your thoughts on this topic.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
I fully agree with you.
Not all farms are as cruel as some people think as well. (Local farms are generally kind to their livestock.)
Even some plants, fruits and vegetable are not actually healthy. (Bananas have high chances of disease if not protected.)
I think your definition of "kind" must vary substantially from mine.
Do you believe that kindness and exploitation are mutually exclusive?
Yes, especially when it involves slaughter. Kindness, as I define it, involves treating individuals with consideration for their individuality and not as mere means to an end. I see no way to reconcile farming practices that involve separation of young from parents or slaughter (either for the primary purpose of meat or when a laying chicken or diary cow is "spent") with kindness, as I understand it.
I realize that people who include these practices in their definition of "kindness" may be using a different definition, one that is valid for them. Let's say I decide to treat someone with a level of consideration that is also compatible with ultimately treating them as an object to meet my desired ends, regardless of the ultimate harm to their wellbeing. An argument can be made that one should consider that "kindness." I don't agree with that argument, but I understand it.
It comes down to: when we say a person engaged in farming is "kind" to the individuals we decide to call "livestock," what exactly does that mean? For some, it would mean they avoid the deliberate infliction of harm or emotional distress except when it is necessary to meet their desired goals.
A misconception about vegans is that we (as a group) believe that individuals engaged in farming are deliberately cruel, take delight in harming animals, or are maliciously sadistic. It isn't necessary to believe any of these things to object to common farming practices. I don't have to think someone is being deliberately "mean" to object to someone being hurt.5 -
I started getting more local sources for my meat and hunting for much of it as well. Usually bag some duck, geese and turkey in lieu of buying factory farmed chicken and try for a deer or moose so I buy less beef and pork. Still end up buying factory farmed meat, but half as much as I used to.4
-
The Game Changers is a compelling film for those who are on the fence and interested in the research without the gut wrenching film of suffering animals. For those who are not on the fence, you will find your reasons to support your beliefs.
x2. I just watched it on Netflix. It is only one side, which annoys me. Nonetheless it is very well done.
0 -
I've probably watched them all by this point and no, they haven't influenced me one way or the other. I've experimented with all sorts of different ways of eating and have settled on a way that works well for me. Going by energy levels, ease of weight management, blood work panels, health check ups etc. No harm in giving different ways of eating a try though, that's really the only way you'll be able to figure out what works/doesn't work for you.
As far as the propaganda 'documentaries' that try to shame people for their food choices, those just irritate me and I have very little tolerance for them.3 -
I understand why so many people are so influenced by these Netflix "documentaries." They why they are made is designed to create overwhelming emotion. I watched cowspiracy, despite knowing its propaganda, I still felt moved by it until one particular scene. It shows dairy cows exiting a milking parlor. Sad music plays the camera zooms in on the cows teats which are bright red, they look like raw sores on the cows. Its iodine. Iodine is a common disinfectant used for milking they wipe the cows teats with it, as well as the milkers to make sure everything is sterile. It was during that scene I realised that most of the film is sad music and images of things that could be seen as horrific to people who don't know any better.16
-
Grace_spaceship wrote: »I understand why so many people are so influenced by these Netflix "documentaries." They why they are made is designed to create overwhelming emotion. I watched cowspiracy, despite knowing its propaganda, I still felt moved by it until one particular scene. It shows dairy cows exiting a milking parlor. Sad music plays the camera zooms in on the cows teats which are bright red, they look like raw sores on the cows. Its iodine. Iodine is a common disinfectant used for milking they wipe the cows teats with it, as well as the milkers to make sure everything is sterile. It was during that scene I realised that most of the film is sad music and images of things that could be seen as horrific to people who don't know any better.
I don't think there is any unknown context that could make slaughterhouse footage non-horrific to me. What is it that you think I need to know to make it seem okay?2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Grace_spaceship wrote: »I understand why so many people are so influenced by these Netflix "documentaries." They why they are made is designed to create overwhelming emotion. I watched cowspiracy, despite knowing its propaganda, I still felt moved by it until one particular scene. It shows dairy cows exiting a milking parlor. Sad music plays the camera zooms in on the cows teats which are bright red, they look like raw sores on the cows. Its iodine. Iodine is a common disinfectant used for milking they wipe the cows teats with it, as well as the milkers to make sure everything is sterile. It was during that scene I realised that most of the film is sad music and images of things that could be seen as horrific to people who don't know any better.
I don't think there is any unknown context that could make slaughterhouse footage non-horrific to me. What is it that you think I need to know to make it seem okay?
This is exactly why I won't watch these films. I try to eat mostly chicken and fish when I eat meat. Around once a month (sometimes less), I'll eat red meat. Not to insult poultry, but the brain of a chicken isn't a cow or a pig. At least that's how I rationalize it.
I'm a huge animal fan and like animals much better than people. I guess it's my introvert side coming out. While I understand much of the information in these films is meant to play on your emotions (and it has obvious bias), I'm the type of person that can easily be swayed by my natural inclinations already.
I have rescued dogs and cats. Doesn't mean I need to see dogs being crated for dog meat and don't want to see it either. I guess I've come to that point in my life where I've been an active activist in many areas, including the environment, so I'm good and don't want to get more upset. There's enough going on in this world that will raise your blood pressure.1 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Grace_spaceship wrote: »I understand why so many people are so influenced by these Netflix "documentaries." They why they are made is designed to create overwhelming emotion. I watched cowspiracy, despite knowing its propaganda, I still felt moved by it until one particular scene. It shows dairy cows exiting a milking parlor. Sad music plays the camera zooms in on the cows teats which are bright red, they look like raw sores on the cows. Its iodine. Iodine is a common disinfectant used for milking they wipe the cows teats with it, as well as the milkers to make sure everything is sterile. It was during that scene I realised that most of the film is sad music and images of things that could be seen as horrific to people who don't know any better.
I don't think there is any unknown context that could make slaughterhouse footage non-horrific to me. What is it that you think I need to know to make it seem okay?
This is exactly why I won't watch these films. I try to eat mostly chicken and fish when I eat meat. Around once a month (sometimes less), I'll eat red meat. Not to insult poultry, but the brain of a chicken isn't a cow or a pig. At least that's how I rationalize it.
I'm a huge animal fan and like animals much better than people. I guess it's my introvert side coming out. While I understand much of the information in these films is meant to play on your emotions (and it has obvious bias), I'm the type of person that can easily be swayed by my natural inclinations already.
I have rescued dogs and cats. Doesn't mean I need to see dogs being crated for dog meat and don't want to see it either. I guess I've come to that point in my life where I've been an active activist in many areas, including the environment, so I'm good and don't want to get more upset. There's enough going on in this world that will raise your blood pressure.
I personally avoid all those videos myself, they're just purely upsetting.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having an emotional response to seeing someone hurt. It's part of having empathy, which I consider a frequently positive trait. As long as we're also bringing our brain to situations, it's okay to also bring our heart.3 -
No and yes. I'm an environmental geographer and academic, and so have accumulated a whole laundry list of documentaries similar to KING CORN and FOOD, INC that I've used in classes for years. After about 30 years of being very mindful about where my food comes from and progressively consuming less and less meat and dairy (e.g., about once a week 20 years ago down to about once a month 3 years ago) it just wasn't much of a challenge to just quit altogether. I'm sure at some level, having watched and discussed those documentaries many times over the year became sort of confirmation bias that validated my choices, but I can't say that there was a moment that any documentary drove my choice.2
-
Some animals were put on this planet to eat.5
-
Some animals were put on this planet to eat.
The idea that an individual's entire reason for existing is to serve another's pleasure or convenience and that they have no individual interest in their own life that is worth respecting or even acknowledging is really something, I'll give it that.3 -
Nope. And with ALL DOCUMENTARIES, there always seems to be bias. There are few out there that actually give equal time to both sides.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Removing Bias doesn't mean you have to give equal time to both sides. Bias means acknowledging there is another point of view and including it, but it doesn't have to take equal airtime.
If you were trying to do that then any documentary about the planets, specifically earth, would need to include equal time about flat earth.
Yes all documentaries have bias. Its impossible to remove bias. But there are degrees of bias. And a documentary that includes the term "coagulated cow pus" without then clarifying what cheese actually is made of is showing its extreme bias. Where as a documentary that explores vegan diet and exploring the environmental impact caused by farming of animals, and also discusses the environmental impact of the expanding soy production would be less bias.
4 -
Nope. And with ALL DOCUMENTARIES, there always seems to be bias. There are few out there that actually give equal time to both sides.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Removing Bias doesn't mean you have to give equal time to both sides. Bias means acknowledging there is another point of view and including it, but it doesn't have to take equal airtime.
If you were trying to do that then any documentary about the planets, specifically earth, would need to include equal time about flat earth.
Yes all documentaries have bias. Its impossible to remove bias. But there are degrees of bias. And a documentary that includes the term "coagulated cow pus" without then clarifying what cheese actually is made of is showing its extreme bias. Where as a documentary that explores vegan diet and exploring the environmental impact caused by farming of animals, and also discusses the environmental impact of the expanding soy production would be less bias.
In discussing the environmental impact of expanding soy production, I think it's important to note that about 70% of it is fed to farmed animals. So the environmental impact caused by the farming of animals INCLUDES the environmental impact of soy production, it isn't a separate thing.4 -
-
While I found them interesting, I would say watching documentaries are a way to introduce the topic. The #1 thing that convinced me to eat plant based was that our local hospital (and many across the country) have started offering Dean Ornish's plan to cardiac patients, and it is covered by insurance. I was having some health problems and was looking for a heart healthy diet and just stumbled upon it. Then I read his books, then I watched the documentaries. So by that point, I was on my way to being convinced. What got me all the way convinced is trying it. Wow. A week in I felt great, really amazing. My blood pressure dropped significantly and my hugely swollen ankles were back to normal size.
I started last September and I am ashamed to say COVID and the difficulty getting "my" food at the grocery store here in NJ, work stress and a house full of kids doing online school had me falling off the wagon. In the 6 months that I followed the plan I lost 30lbs and felt great. Convenience and food prep are the biggest struggles for me.4 -
JessiBelleW wrote: »One year I was flying somewhere and watched “that sugar film” on the plane. It was a man who’s lady got pregnant and he decided to eat the average sugar intake of the average Australian and basically within 2 months had himself at pre-diabetic insulin resistance and had gained like 20kgs.
I’m a meat eater and always will be but for me it was a massive wake up call about the rest of my diet and how much filler foods are just crap food. I would say now veggies make up 85% of my diet
We can't just look at sugar intake, because you can eat 200g of sugar a day and still be lean, that's entirely possible. The guy gained all that weight because he ate more calories.
If he had decided to replace some calories with sugar while still eating the same number of calories he wouldn't have gained all that weight.
Sure - but 200g of sugar a day won’t help you with insulin resistance!1 -
Yes then went back to eating meat, dairy, eggs and fish after feeling shocking.2
-
I hunt for the meat I eat so it would take a lot more than a Netflix documentary to make me stop eating meat.
I do agree with some of the environmentalist views on farm raised animals for slaughter. Some of the meat in the grocery store isn't even fit for my dog to eat.
The only way I won't eat meat is if I have a very unsuccessful Deer/Turkey & Bear season...
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
I fully agree with you.
Not all farms are as cruel as some people think as well. (Local farms are generally kind to their livestock.)
Even some plants, fruits and vegetable are not actually healthy. (Bananas have high chances of disease if not protected.)
I think your definition of "kind" must vary substantially from mine.
Do you believe that kindness and exploitation are mutually exclusive?
Yes, especially when it involves slaughter. Kindness, as I define it, involves treating individuals with consideration for their individuality and not as mere means to an end. I see no way to reconcile farming practices that involve separation of young from parents or slaughter (either for the primary purpose of meat or when a laying chicken or diary cow is "spent") with kindness, as I understand it.
I realize that people who include these practices in their definition of "kindness" may be using a different definition, one that is valid for them. Let's say I decide to treat someone with a level of consideration that is also compatible with ultimately treating them as an object to meet my desired ends, regardless of the ultimate harm to their wellbeing. An argument can be made that one should consider that "kindness." I don't agree with that argument, but I understand it.
It comes down to: when we say a person engaged in farming is "kind" to the individuals we decide to call "livestock," what exactly does that mean? For some, it would mean they avoid the deliberate infliction of harm or emotional distress except when it is necessary to meet their desired goals.
A misconception about vegans is that we (as a group) believe that individuals engaged in farming are deliberately cruel, take delight in harming animals, or are maliciously sadistic. It isn't necessary to believe any of these things to object to common farming practices. I don't have to think someone is being deliberately "mean" to object to someone being hurt.
Thanks!
My mother kept goats for milk when I was young. While I would have thought we were kind to them, you have a very valid argument that separating their young, etc. is incompatible with kindness. We did treat Becky and Daisy with consideration for their individuality, but not their young. (And of course we were exploiting them for their milk.)2 -
-
kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
I fully agree with you.
Not all farms are as cruel as some people think as well. (Local farms are generally kind to their livestock.)
Even some plants, fruits and vegetable are not actually healthy. (Bananas have high chances of disease if not protected.)
I think your definition of "kind" must vary substantially from mine.
Do you believe that kindness and exploitation are mutually exclusive?
Yes, especially when it involves slaughter. Kindness, as I define it, involves treating individuals with consideration for their individuality and not as mere means to an end. I see no way to reconcile farming practices that involve separation of young from parents or slaughter (either for the primary purpose of meat or when a laying chicken or diary cow is "spent") with kindness, as I understand it.
I realize that people who include these practices in their definition of "kindness" may be using a different definition, one that is valid for them. Let's say I decide to treat someone with a level of consideration that is also compatible with ultimately treating them as an object to meet my desired ends, regardless of the ultimate harm to their wellbeing. An argument can be made that one should consider that "kindness." I don't agree with that argument, but I understand it.
It comes down to: when we say a person engaged in farming is "kind" to the individuals we decide to call "livestock," what exactly does that mean? For some, it would mean they avoid the deliberate infliction of harm or emotional distress except when it is necessary to meet their desired goals.
A misconception about vegans is that we (as a group) believe that individuals engaged in farming are deliberately cruel, take delight in harming animals, or are maliciously sadistic. It isn't necessary to believe any of these things to object to common farming practices. I don't have to think someone is being deliberately "mean" to object to someone being hurt.
Thanks!
My mother kept goats for milk when I was young. While I would have thought we were kind to them, you have a very valid argument that separating their young, etc. is incompatible with kindness. We did treat Becky and Daisy with consideration for their individuality, but not their young. (And of course we were exploiting them for their milk.)
I love Daisy as a name for a goat. I have no idea why, it just feels so fitting!0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
Yes, I think there are two separate possible arguments here.
1. Animals were put on this earth for our use. We can use them in whatever ways we choose, whether for our pleasure, our convenience, or to maximize our profit.
2. Animals were put on this earth for a certain set of uses (to help with labor, provide material for clothing, help nourish us, or to provide entertainment or companionship would be a set of examples. To serve as test subjects in ways that are judged too unpleasant/risky for humans would probably also be in this category for those making this argument). We can use them in these ways, but are morally obligated to *otherwise* consider their wellbeing, comfort, and distress when it doesn't conflict with the approved uses.
Someone making argument two would object to things like beating dogs or vivisection of live and conscious animals (unless a research purpose deemed sufficient was met by the animal's consciousness during the procedure).
Cultural conflicts often arise between people who would consider themselves to be in category two. For example, people in some parts of the world would consider dolphin a perfectly acceptable food animal. People in other parts of the world would consider killing dolphins for food to be inappropriate, but are fine with killing other animals for food. People may consider using animals for entertainment to be an appropriate use, but draw the line at certain types of entertainment -- circuses, dog fighting, rodeos, bullfighting, sport hunting. It's possible for people to approve of some of these, but not others. There are people who were upset or concerned by the killing of Cecil the lion, but are fine with sport fishing or recreational hunting of a less exotic sort. There are people who are fine with leather, but oppose fur.
IMO, there are relatively few people in our culture who would identify -- openly -- as members of group one. Most people can think of examples of animal exploitation that they would oppose. There's some level of animal suffering or distress that they would considered unjustified, even if it did please a human. There are some *types* of human pleasure in animal death or discomfort that they would oppose. There may be specific animals they feel should be exempted from the general expectation that animals are here for us to use as we see fit.
The issue with factory farming (one of the issues, I guess) is that if you're in group two and you believe there are certain uses of animals that are legitimate, proper, and morally appropriate, animals are often treated in ways that disregard their comfort and distress, forcing observers to contemplate how much profit and convenience should be a factor in how we treat animals. If ground beef currently costs $3.99 a pound and treating cows in ways that minimized their discomfort and distress (while still resulting in eventual slaughter) brought the price up to $6.99, am I obligated to consider them? What if it made the price $10.99 a pound? What's the actual worth of a cow's pain and distress? Lots of people who eat meat are currently voting with their wallets on this one.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
I fully agree with you.
Not all farms are as cruel as some people think as well. (Local farms are generally kind to their livestock.)
Even some plants, fruits and vegetable are not actually healthy. (Bananas have high chances of disease if not protected.)
I think your definition of "kind" must vary substantially from mine.
Do you believe that kindness and exploitation are mutually exclusive?
Yes, especially when it involves slaughter. Kindness, as I define it, involves treating individuals with consideration for their individuality and not as mere means to an end. I see no way to reconcile farming practices that involve separation of young from parents or slaughter (either for the primary purpose of meat or when a laying chicken or diary cow is "spent") with kindness, as I understand it.
I realize that people who include these practices in their definition of "kindness" may be using a different definition, one that is valid for them. Let's say I decide to treat someone with a level of consideration that is also compatible with ultimately treating them as an object to meet my desired ends, regardless of the ultimate harm to their wellbeing. An argument can be made that one should consider that "kindness." I don't agree with that argument, but I understand it.
It comes down to: when we say a person engaged in farming is "kind" to the individuals we decide to call "livestock," what exactly does that mean? For some, it would mean they avoid the deliberate infliction of harm or emotional distress except when it is necessary to meet their desired goals.
A misconception about vegans is that we (as a group) believe that individuals engaged in farming are deliberately cruel, take delight in harming animals, or are maliciously sadistic. It isn't necessary to believe any of these things to object to common farming practices. I don't have to think someone is being deliberately "mean" to object to someone being hurt.
Thanks!
My mother kept goats for milk when I was young. While I would have thought we were kind to them, you have a very valid argument that separating their young, etc. is incompatible with kindness. We did treat Becky and Daisy with consideration for their individuality, but not their young. (And of course we were exploiting them for their milk.)
I love Daisy as a name for a goat. I have no idea why, it just feels so fitting!
A totally off-topic story about a goat named Daisy...
My cousins had a goat named Daisy and they wanted baby goats. So, they called a service that would take the goat, introduce her to male goats, and let nature take its course.
The guy said it usually takes a couple of weeks for the goats to get to know each other before anything happens.
Two days later, the guy called and said they could come pick up Daisy.
"Already?", they asked.
"Yes, ma'am...it turns out that Daisy is kind of a sl*t, so we're pretty sure she's pregnant now."
Daisy did indeed have two kids, but she never could shake that reputation.7 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Contrary to what most people are saying here, I certainly have been influenced by such documentaries. What has influenced me, however, is not the ‘gross’ factor or the nutrition factor either (if I could easily change my eating habits for better nutrition I would have given up sugar long before meat!). It’s also not the pure ethical argument - I see no problem with killing animals for food, I see this as the circle of life.
What such documentaries DID open my eyes to was how incredibly cruelly animals are treated when raised for meat on factory farms in the US and how this process is largely influenced by desire to profit by meeting the huge demand for meat in the US that far surpasses any true ‘need’ that we have. My clear takeaway from this was that it was very important for Americans to significantly *reduce* (but not necessarily eliminate) their meat consumption. As a result of such documentaries, I did end up going purely vegetarian for a short time (about 6 months). I say short time not because I just forgot/gave up/stopped caring, but because I moved abroad shortly thereafter. I moved somewhere where I would have very little control over my food, where vegetarianism isn’t a thing, and where animals are not raised on factory farms! For these reasons, I shifted back to meat eating not only due to need, but also due to the fact that my major concerns were not relevant in that context.
Since returning to the US, I have also returned to hugely limiting my meat consumption. I do not buy it at the grocery store, I do not cook it, I only (sometimes) eat it when going out to a restaurant or when someone else is cooking for me. I don’t see myself going back to my old ways thinking meat is a required part of every meal any time soon. The environmental argument is also starting to make more of an impact on me and reinforcing this approach. And, yes, this all came from a documentary I watched back in college!
I am intrigued by the argument that it's morally appropriate to end someone's life for pleasure or convenience but that one cannot take measures to make a profit off of doing so. If it's okay to eat someone, why would it be inappropriate to cause them discomfort, pain, or distress in the process? Presumably the "circle of life" contains all three of those experiences.
Just to make sure I’m understanding, the “someone” you are referring to is the animals, right? I don’t see this as problematic as, among other reasons, in the wild you find plenty of animals that kill other animals for food. Even those who cannot survive otherwise. This is a natural sequence of nature and how all flora and fauna have evolved to survive. I don’t see this as problematic. Humans are omnivores by nature (our canine teeth prove it).
And I’m not arguing that it’s wrong to try to make a profit either, but I do believe there are moral limits in how you do so. While I accept that it is natural that animals (including humans) kill each other for food, I do think it can be done in a more humane manner. I do not believe that raising animal under conditions where it is suffering every instant of its existence is humane. I do not believe that frequently happens naturally in the wild either. This is, however, what happens often in factory farming (in order to maximize profit and meet high demand).
Give animals space, keep them healthy, allow them to enjoy their lives, and then kill them humanely, as needed for food. Doing this would require us as consumers to reduce our demand for meat by eating it less frequently and/or ensure we only purchase humanely raised meat because, otherwise, owners of factory farms do indeed have financial incentive to promote absurd amounts of suffering.
I fully agree with you.
Not all farms are as cruel as some people think as well. (Local farms are generally kind to their livestock.)
Even some plants, fruits and vegetable are not actually healthy. (Bananas have high chances of disease if not protected.)
I think your definition of "kind" must vary substantially from mine.
Do you believe that kindness and exploitation are mutually exclusive?
Yes, especially when it involves slaughter. Kindness, as I define it, involves treating individuals with consideration for their individuality and not as mere means to an end. I see no way to reconcile farming practices that involve separation of young from parents or slaughter (either for the primary purpose of meat or when a laying chicken or diary cow is "spent") with kindness, as I understand it.
I realize that people who include these practices in their definition of "kindness" may be using a different definition, one that is valid for them. Let's say I decide to treat someone with a level of consideration that is also compatible with ultimately treating them as an object to meet my desired ends, regardless of the ultimate harm to their wellbeing. An argument can be made that one should consider that "kindness." I don't agree with that argument, but I understand it.
It comes down to: when we say a person engaged in farming is "kind" to the individuals we decide to call "livestock," what exactly does that mean? For some, it would mean they avoid the deliberate infliction of harm or emotional distress except when it is necessary to meet their desired goals.
A misconception about vegans is that we (as a group) believe that individuals engaged in farming are deliberately cruel, take delight in harming animals, or are maliciously sadistic. It isn't necessary to believe any of these things to object to common farming practices. I don't have to think someone is being deliberately "mean" to object to someone being hurt.
Thanks!
My mother kept goats for milk when I was young. While I would have thought we were kind to them, you have a very valid argument that separating their young, etc. is incompatible with kindness. We did treat Becky and Daisy with consideration for their individuality, but not their young. (And of course we were exploiting them for their milk.)
I love Daisy as a name for a goat. I have no idea why, it just feels so fitting!
A totally off-topic story about a goat named Daisy...
My cousins had a goat named Daisy and they wanted baby goats. So, they called a service that would take the goat, introduce her to male goats, and let nature take its course.
The guy said it usually takes a couple of weeks for the goats to get to know each other before anything happens.
Two days later, the guy called and said they could come pick up Daisy.
"Already?", they asked.
"Yes, ma'am...it turns out that Daisy is kind of a sl*t, so we're pretty sure she's pregnant now."
Daisy did indeed have two kids, but she never could shake that reputation.
I'm dying, this is a great story!0 -
Not a documentary, but Graham Hill's TED Talk about being a weekday vegetarian did motivate me to eat less meat. My family now eats vegetarian at least a couple days a week and it's not difficult. Eggplant parm instead of chicken, for example, and nobody even notices.1
-
I stopped eating meat around 2011 although I still eat fish, eggs, and diary. As of late, I'm considering transitioning over to an entire plant based diet.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions