Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can you compare children to animals? Is it based on the fact that they are both living creatures?
I didn't compare them. I raised the eating children case as a counterexample to the claim that what one eats is no one else's business. It would obviously be the business of others if one were to eat children, so there are at least some cases in which what one eats is the business of others. I then argued that eating animals is also immoral, and immoral behavior is the business of all.
As a side note, the fact that a living creature is a living creature is not of moral consequence. What matters is whether that living creature is conscious, and if so, to what extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Cave Man
Immoral is not illegal, and what you consider immoral and what I consider immoral may be two different things. I think it's immoral to treat animals better than humans. I know some think the opposite. That's their business and there is no reason I should make it mine......until it becomes illegal.
So you're going to argue for moral anti-realism now? It always amazes me how ordinary people who think all sorts of things are wrong and all sorts of things are right suddenly want to say there is no such thing as moral truth when this topic comes up. If we got rid of laws against murder, would killing innocent people suddenly be a "You say tomAto, I say tomahto" sort of thing? Of course not. The fact that there is moral disagreement doesn't imply there is no moral truth. In fact, you don't believe what you just said. Let's say you're at the corner drugstore and you see someone walk up to a nice old lady and say "You're an ugly old hag, and I bet you're stupid, too. Do you think your kids wish you were dead already so they could get their inheritance?" Would your response be "Well, it isn't illegal for this person to say such a thing, so I should mind my own business." Of course not. The fact that it's not illegal is irrelevant.
In most cases, eating animals is far more immoral than telling off a nice old lady on the street. It's far more immoral than telling a Jew that the holocaust was a great moment in human history or any other practice that most Americans would say is reprehensible and should be called out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Cave Man
Food is a VERY touchy subject, no different than religion or politics. People tend to think that everyone else should think like they do. Everyone has an opinion, it's their right.
It may be as touchy as religion and politics, but it is of much more consequence than both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Cave Man
How many vegan's/vegetarians actually know the details of meat production, other than what the media tells/shows them? I honestly would like to know how many have personally visited a farm to get the actual facts. Your quote, "it gets tiresome because many ex-vegans make ridiculous claims". I agree on the "other side". It gets tiresome because many people make ridiculous claims about farmers and meat production.
Just wanted to show another POV.
Personally visited a farm? The vast majority of meat is either raised or finished in commercial operations that are either owned by or under contract with one of a handful of major meat companies. They aren't exactly the sorts of places a person can go check out. Fortunately, there have been numerous under-cover videos shot and interviews done with former employees. Even better, we know a lot about the practices these companies have because they actively lobby against increased regulations on animal welfare standards such as the size of a cage a pig must be kept in. If you're arguing that the conditions most animals are raised in during the commercial agriculture process in this country are not actually that bad, you are badly misinformed.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 11-21-2015 at 11:43 PM..
Let's be careful here: A study from Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany, using a very sensitive methodology designed to avoid false positives associated with how certain supplements mask the true state of deficiency, found that 83% of vegans are B12 deficient. Even though eggs and dairy provide some B12 as well, 68% of vegetarians are B12 deficient. (Compare that to 5% of omnivores.) So it seems unlikely that this is just a matter of acclimating to a new diet.
Our bodies weren't made to be vegan. While we may eventually evolve (back?) in that direction, the ability to be vegan and healthy is a product of relatively modern technology, and success as a vegan depends greatly on the discipline one practices toward B12 supplementation, the quality of the alternative B12 sources used, and one's body's capacity to absorb B12 in vegan forms.
That 68% number for vegetarians indicates that this is not just a vegan problem. It seems clear that some vegetarians relying on cheese and eggs to deal with this requirement are simply not metabolizing enough of the vitamin, delivered that way. I know from personal experience that even with a healthy vegetarian diet plus B12 supplementation, B12 deficiency is still possible.
There are some very good points here. While I do believe most people can be healthy vegans, I also believe that vegans and vegetarians both need to be far more diligent about getting blood work done and evaluating their diet. They are more susceptible to vitamin deficiencies, but fortunately those deficiencies can almost always be remedied through supplementation or dietary adjustments. You are also correct that vegetarianism and veganism are really only possible due to modern nutritional supplementation advances. That certainly doesn't diminish the moral imperative people have to try to eat ethically, however; after all, performing heart surgery is only possible due to modern advancements, but we wouldn't say that would eliminate a heart surgeon's moral obligation to try to save a patient's life if possible.
In most cases, eating animals is far more immoral than telling off a nice old lady on the street. It's far more immoral than telling a Jew that the holocaust was a great moment in human history or any other practice that most Americans would say is reprehensible and should be called out.
It may be as touchy as religion and politics, but it is of much more consequence than both.
Personally visited a farm? The vast majority of meat is either raised or finished in commercial operations that are either owned by or under contract with one of a handful of major meat companies. They aren't exactly the sorts of places a person can go check out. Fortunately, there have been numerous under-cover videos shot and interviews done with former employees. Even better, we know a lot about the practices these companies have because they actively lobby against increased regulations on animal welfare standards such as the size of a cage a pig must be kept in. If you're arguing that the conditions most animals are raised in during the commercial agriculture process in this country are not actually that bad, you are badly misinformed.
You make some great points in your post, kudos. I'm not saying I totally agree, but I understand your point.
I will disagree with the point that you can't check out where and how your meat is raised. I know a fair bit about raising animals and crops. You don't know a lot about the practices just by the way they lobby.
We do need laws against the "crazy" people that are shown in the videos we both have seen. Judging the whole by the actions of a few is not logical.
Yes, I will argue about the conditions most animals are raised during their lifetime. (but not on this thread, that would be hijacking) I consider myself very informed, as I do raise livestock and grow crops. The crops are used mostly for animal consumption.
If I'm not back soon, I do want to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. I do enjoy and have learned from your opinion and I thank you. I wish you and your family the best and look forward to visiting again soon.
I'm an ex-vegan. One of the things that irked me about the vegans I knew when I was a practicing vegan for 8 years is the (possibly subconscious) belief that they are somehow superior or immortal. Why did I stop? Health reasons. My gall bladder and my adrenals suffered. I was on a very strong prescripted diet that supposedly insured I was getting everything I needed. But my body was shutting down, even though I took supplements. MY body is not built for veganism. Plain and simple. There are those who believe they can tell others what's best for their bodies -- yet when I tell THEM that this was not good for my body, they bleat and protest and yell at me. I'm not telling you what to do, so don't tell me. I tried it... and I have the medical tests to prove it didn't work.
That being said, I appreciate very much the concerns about ethical treatment of all our food. I won't buy even organic food from Mexico because I visited an "organic" farm there. The most notable thing missing around the farms were porta-potties for the workers. (You do the math...)
I still am mostly vegetarian at home. I grow my own veggies. I find out the source of things I eat. I try to buy local so I can go to the farm and buy what I can't grow myself. I occasionally eat eggs and feel stronger because of it. I added olive and avocado oils to my diet to help my liver, gall bladder and adrenals. But I also live in the real world. I have a career that takes me into my client's homes and events. I cannot turn food down and make a stink because of what they serve. Not only is it rude, it's not my rodeo and not my ponies. People who turn every meal into an opportunity to grandstand are really just being egotistic, IMHO. "Look at MEEEEEE! I'm SO AMAZING! I CARE about ANIMALS!" Really? I've seen leather shoes on some of these people. Down jackets. They use Plastic Bags, tires on their bicycles, use conditioner and shampoo, eat brown sugar... 9 everyday products you didn't know had animal ingredients : TreeHugger
Look, unless you are going to live in the woods, completely off the grid, grow your own food and weave your own clothing, you will run into animal-based products. Does it make me happy? No. But I live in the real world. We do make trade-offs every day. My trade-off is that since I travel so much, and since food is such a huuuuuge part of so many cultures and I can't afford to be insulting my hosts, I made a decision that I would just look for best choices. If the village I'm in only has as a delicacy called bone marrow soup, hmmmmm, not my fave, but I don't feel like starving today. I eat it.
I carry foods that help me survive. I bake organic red potatoes and keep them in the fridge. I make carrot, celery and jicama sticks and keep them with me. I cook vegetarian at home. I always have some kind of nuts or dried fruits with me. But do I occasionally eat a little free-range chicken, bison or other meat? Yep. I do it consciously so my body will have the enzymes necessary to digest it. I don't believe that because I have had the luxury up to this point to always choose what I put in my body that I will always have that luxury. Above all, a human being needs to be able to adapt to their environment. Veganism makes a lot of demands that are not always available.
The inconvenient truth here is this: Veganism is often a First World conceit. A benefit of a wealthy lifestyle that allows you to afford "pure" foods and be picky about it. In most countries around the world, you simply eat what is available. You eat for nutrition and you eat so you don't starve. If the SHTF, trust me, you ain't gonna have the ability to say, "Oh hey! Can you tell me if this gruel is cruelty-free?"
Personally, I think from my own experience that those who have eliminated the enzymes necessary to digest animal products are going to have a rough road ahead of them if the food chain ever breaks down. Your bodies will have to go through a very unpleasant adjustment period.
R_Cowgirl makes a good point. Everyone's needs are different. In general, according to vast studies of whole populations, vegan-or-close-to-it is very healthy. But some groups and individuals fail or even die on a diet like that. You couldn't, for instance, have a vegan Inuit village. That tribe has lived for uncounted centuries on nearly 100% animal protein. Too many carbs kill them quickly and they aren't used to digesting a lot of vegetables. I would expect just the opposite in a village of observant Hindus who have been observing for the same amount of time -- I shudder to think what a steak-and-lobster dinner would do to them. Some people love the 'paleo' diet, BUT IT ISN'T FOR EVERYONE -- and by the way, it's not paleolithic at all.
But if you're of recent European, Asian or African ancestry, chances are you'll generally do better with almost all plant foods, and maybe a sprinkling of eggs, fish and meat here and there. If you're living rough in the woods, TRULY paleolithic-style, you'll have your hands and teeth and not much else to get you some food. You need to be able to catch up with it running in bare feet, catch it in your hands without getting killed, and eat it raw without getting sick. That means leaves, stems, fruit, roots, nuts, and a few bugs, eggs and fish -- mostly shellfish.
I didn't compare them. I raised the eating children case as a counterexample to the claim that what one eats is no one else's business. It would obviously be the business of others if one were to eat children, so there are at least some cases in which what one eats is the business of others. I then argued that eating animals is also immoral, and immoral behavior is the business of all.
As a side note, the fact that a living creature is a living creature is not of moral consequence. What matters is whether that living creature is conscious, and if so, to what extent.
So you're going to argue for moral anti-realism now? It always amazes me how ordinary people who think all sorts of things are wrong and all sorts of things are right suddenly want to say there is no such thing as moral truth when this topic comes up. If we got rid of laws against murder, would killing innocent people suddenly be a "You say tomAto, I say tomahto" sort of thing? Of course not. The fact that there is moral disagreement doesn't imply there is no moral truth. In fact, you don't believe what you just said. Let's say you're at the corner drugstore and you see someone walk up to a nice old lady and say "You're an ugly old hag, and I bet you're stupid, too. Do you think your kids wish you were dead already so they could get their inheritance?" Would your response be "Well, it isn't illegal for this person to say such a thing, so I should mind my own business." Of course not. The fact that it's not illegal is irrelevant.
In most cases, eating animals is far more immoral than telling off a nice old lady on the street. It's far more immoral than telling a Jew that the holocaust was a great moment in human history or any other practice that most Americans would say is reprehensible and should be called out.
It may be as touchy as religion and politics, but it is of much more consequence than both.
Personally visited a farm? The vast majority of meat is either raised or finished in commercial operations that are either owned by or under contract with one of a handful of major meat companies. They aren't exactly the sorts of places a person can go check out. Fortunately, there have been numerous under-cover videos shot and interviews done with former employees. Even better, we know a lot about the practices these companies have because they actively lobby against increased regulations on animal welfare standards such as the size of a cage a pig must be kept in. If you're arguing that the conditions most animals are raised in during the commercial agriculture process in this country are not actually that bad, you are badly misinformed.
Couldn't rep you again. I am trying hard to be a vegetarian/vegan.
Anyone who is comfortable with what goes on in factory farms or slaughterhouses is a sadist - or has no feelings. They are pretty much as close to hell as anyone might get on earth. For innocent animals who did absolutely nothing to deserve this brutal treatment.
And yes, the lobby efforts against gestational crates are indictment enough, as are the existence of "AG-GAG" laws, that essentially say that animals who are used for food are not covered under the humane laws that govern other animals.
But I also live in the real world. I have a career that takes me into my client's homes and events. I cannot turn food down and make a stink because of what they serve. Not only is it rude, it's not my rodeo and not my ponies. People who turn every meal into an opportunity to grandstand are really just being egotistic, IMHO. "Look at MEEEEEE! I'm SO AMAZING! I CARE about ANIMALS!" Really? I've seen leather shoes on some of these people. Down jackets. They use Plastic Bags, tires on their bicycles, use conditioner and shampoo, eat brown sugar... 9 everyday products you didn't know had animal ingredients : TreeHugger
Look, unless you are going to live in the woods, completely off the grid, grow your own food and weave your own clothing, you will run into animal-based products.
If you require animal products for health reasons, that's one thing. But don't try to act like the insult a host might feel outweighs the moral imperative to minimize suffering. "Hey, sorry mr. pig, but I don't want my host to be offended, so you get to die today." I also don't think the desire to not appear to be grandstanding is very important. At the end of the day, good ethical decision making weighs the various sources of suffering and sources of happiness/utility/pleasure. The best decision is the one that maximizes the latter and minimizes the former. Again, if your body needs animal products, that is one thing. If you don't want to offend a person, that is another. Granted, there are scenarios in which eating meat does not cause any additional marginal suffering. If you're referring to those sorts of cases, there is no issue, but it has nothing to do with considering the host's feelings. Any "suffering" a host might feel simply because you do not want to eat certain food pales in comparison to the suffering caused by eating meat.
Regarding the argument that animal products can't be avoided: This is absolutely true. But that doesn't mean we should feel comfortable with causing additional unnecessary suffering. I've never found the argument that "Suzy vegan drives a car with tires, and those tires have animal products in them, so therefore her position can be ignored" to have weight. It is kind of like saying that since we can't catch all criminals that we shouldn't have police departments. Causing more suffering is worse than causing less suffering. The fact that there will be some suffering in existence is not a reason to give up and stop trying to be ethical. Further, the fact that some vegans may be hypocritical is also of no consequence to the ethical argument against causing suffering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R_Cowgirl
The inconvenient truth here is this: Veganism is often a First World conceit. A benefit of a wealthy lifestyle that allows you to afford "pure" foods and be picky about it. In most countries around the world, you simply eat what is available. You eat for nutrition and you eat so you don't starve. If the SHTF, trust me, you ain't gonna have the ability to say, "Oh hey! Can you tell me if this gruel is cruelty-free?"
Personally, I think from my own experience that those who have eliminated the enzymes necessary to digest animal products are going to have a rough road ahead of them if the food chain ever breaks down. Your bodies will have to go through a very unpleasant adjustment period.
That truth isn't inconvenient at all. I've heard this argument many times, but it simply doesn't prove what you think it proves. Yes, the opportunity to be a vegan is probably something that only folks in the first world have, and if SHTF we'd all be eating whatever we could find. So? We aren't citizens of a third world country, and S is not currently hitting the fan. As I said above, the ability to perform heart surgeries is a privilege of modern times. That doesn't mean a heart surgeon doesn't have an ethical obligation to try to save a dying patient. Our ethical obligations stem from the options we have before us. A person cannot act immorally if he or she could not have done anything else. Thus, by telling an American with means that he or she should eat more ethically, it is not a condemnation of a person in Africa who must eat whatever is available to survive. Here is what is inconvenient: The fact that a person in Africa must eat whatever is available does not give you an excuse to eat whatever you want. Because you have more options, you can behave just as the person in Africa but your behavior may be immoral.
Imagine a person (Smith) is paralyzed, and he is sitting by a pool in his wheelchair. A child falls into the pool and begins to drown. Smith cannot save him, but looks over at his friend Jones, who is the only other person by the pool, and says "Save him!" Jones replies "Saving drowning children is really just a privilege that able-bodied people have. If I couldn't walk, there is no way I could save him, so I think I'm just going to watch him drown." Jones' behavior is obviously unethical because Jones had an option that Smith didn't have. Smith's disability in no way mitigated Jones' responsibility, just as the desperation of real poverty doesn't mitigate our responsibility to eat as ethically as possible.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 12-07-2015 at 08:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
