Options

Fundamentalist Militant [Vegetarianism] and [Veganism]

13468918

Posts

  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Life is life is life. It's all equal. Just live and be happy.

    Don't want to eat meat? Great. Want to eat meat, also great. Want to question someone with an unusal diet? Fine. Want to question the diet of most humans? Also fine.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    As a "this occurs in nature, therefore this is right" argument I'd say that the appeal to predators is a hell of a lot more convincing than the appeal to rapist chimps, if we disregard for a moment the fundamental bankruptcy of this argument structure in the first place. While our ancestors were almost certainly a bunch of rapists, it doesn't exactly require a doctorate in ethics to recognize that rape is bad, and doesn't (in the long run) benefit anyone. On the other hand, it's rather clear that our ancestors would in many cases not have survived if their societies had scorned predation as a method of survival. This has no bearing on our ability to survive in the age of iron supplements and protein shakes (not the dude, the drink), but it certainly has implications regarding the notion that humans are predators.

    I support this notion, because I think it's pretty tough to reconcile the fact that we are a majority-omnivorous species (implicated as a causal factor in the extinction of several species of delicious, meat-bearing mammals on multiple continents) with the idea that we aren't predators. So the only way I see to argue that lions are moral while hunters are cruel is to set up a special pleading either for lions (natural predator exclusivity; their predation is motivated by survival) or for people (human exclusivity; a higher standard of morality is required for predators so very clever as us). I find neither compelling, though I'd appreciate an earnest defense of either.

    It was shocking to me, though, to find that I am very unusual for thinking the way I do, particularly since I grew up in a suburban environment and lack firsthand experience with ranching or hunting or food-animals in general. In one class where an instructor posed a question about whether we would be comfortable personally killing a chicken (which, regardless of our personal action, would be served at dinner that evening) I instantly raised my hand and was baffled by my classmates' failure to do so. Quick as I am to embrace it, I don't believe that most modern humans would appreciate the idea of themselves as a predator.

    I blame Disney. From the beginning of the 20th century, developing in parallel to the shift from rural to urban majority population, we've had these fucking cartoons anthropomorphizing our meat. Just as people forgot what producing food even looks like, we've introduced our children on a massive scale to the notion that animals are just smaller, cuter people. I'm furious that our meat industry is as insane and destructive as it is, but so long as that industry can paint its opposition as a bunch of fucking idiots comparing their operations to the holocaust, they'll continue to get away with murder (of ecosystems; I could give a shit about the livestock). The blood doesn't bother me, but the offal running into the water supply sure does.

    Right. Well said. I can find absolutely nothing to disagree with here but I feel like liming the whole thing would be silly.

    Julius on
  • Options
    BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I feel that the ability to feel pain is an awful basis for developing morality. Hell, there are humans that are physiologically incapable of feeling pain.

    "Suffering" is a bit better, but it's so damn ambiguous as to be almost useless to us.

    BloodySloth on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    EDIT: EGADS this is IRT:Qingu and soy catfood, my god this thread moves fast

    It's tough for me because on the one hand GRARR BOURGEOISIE spending $$$$ (and up the supply chain that means mad natural resources) to feed their cats quality meat-food, but the idea of feeding a fucking CAT a vegetarian diet would be hilarious if it weren't so cruel.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    It's certainly not cheaper to produce, which was my point anyway. The corn that goes into that beef could feed 10x as many people as the beef does.

    The beef industry doesn't/didn't exist simply to feed people. There are plenty of byproducts.

    What you need to do is break down the cost and use we get from one cow and compare that to the cost and use we could get from the corn grown to feed that cow.

    Good point. We use animals for tons of things. It's probably a waste of time to actually make the calculation, not to mention it's very hard, but "feed more people with corn!" is just a simplistic argument.

    Julius on
  • Options
    Niceguy MyeyeNiceguy Myeye Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    Would you like something to eat?

    "No thanks. I'm a vegetarian."

    Right. Because we eat meat means we don't prepare vegetables. Ever.

    Please. GMAFB.

    Actually, it's a lot more complicated than this. When you're a vegetarian and even more so a vegan, you have to remind people of what not put in whatever they want to offer you. I can guarantee that if you don't then they will use some sort of chicken or beef stock or a hambone, or some butter in the dish.

    It's honestly just easier to fix something for myself at a later time than it is to have the due diligence to make sure that there is nothing in whatever dish that has been suggested for me to eat. Also, keep in mind that if I accidentally eat something that's not vegetarian, I will throw it back up even if I don't know that hit had meat in it. It's kind of horrible considering that these people made an honest effort to be good hosts to me, but have made me sick.

    I don't say, "No, I'm a vegetarian and I don't want to risk you making something that will make vomit." Instead, I just say, "Sorry, I'm not hungry." At this point, I pretty much only accept fruit from strangers and I never mention that I'm a vegan to them because it causes more drama than it solves normally.

    Niceguy Myeye on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    It's certainly not cheaper to produce, which was my point anyway. The corn that goes into that beef could feed 10x as many people as the beef does.

    The beef industry doesn't/didn't exist simply to feed people. There are plenty of byproducts.

    What you need to do is break down the cost and use we get from one cow and compare that to the cost and use we could get from the corn grown to feed that cow.

    Good point. We use animals for tons of things. It's probably a waste of time to actually make the calculation, not to mention it's very hard, but "feed more people with corn!" is just a simplistic argument.
    It's not particularly hard to make the broad calculation, considering how mechanistic factory-farming is, and the fact that it's simplistic doesn't mean that it's not valid.

    This doesn't apply to cows that are raised on pasture. but that meat is expensive.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    EnigEnig a.k.a. Ansatz Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    As a "this occurs in nature, therefore this is right" argument I'd say that the appeal to predators is a hell of a lot more convincing than the appeal to rapist chimps, if we disregard for a moment the fundamental bankruptcy of this argument structure in the first place. While our ancestors were almost certainly a bunch of rapists, it doesn't exactly require a doctorate in ethics to recognize that rape is bad, and doesn't (in the long run) benefit anyone. On the other hand, it's rather clear that our ancestors would in many cases not have survived if their societies had scorned predation as a method of survival. This has no bearing on our ability to survive in the age of iron supplements and protein shakes (not the dude, the drink), but it certainly has implications regarding the notion that humans are predators.

    I support this notion, because I think it's pretty tough to reconcile the fact that we are a majority-omnivorous species (implicated as a causal factor in the extinction of several species of delicious, meat-bearing mammals on multiple continents) with the idea that we aren't predators. So the only way I see to argue that lions are moral while hunters are cruel is to set up a special pleading either for lions (natural predator exclusivity; their predation is motivated by survival) or for people (human exclusivity; a higher standard of morality is required for predators so very clever as us). I find neither compelling, though I'd appreciate an earnest defense of either.

    It was shocking to me, though, to find that I am very unusual for thinking the way I do, particularly since I grew up in a suburban environment and lack firsthand experience with ranching or hunting or food-animals in general. In one class where an instructor posed a question about whether we would be comfortable personally killing a chicken (which, regardless of our personal action, would be served at dinner that evening) I instantly raised my hand and was baffled by my classmates' failure to do so. Quick as I am to embrace it, I don't believe that most modern humans would appreciate the idea of themselves as a predator.

    I blame Disney. From the beginning of the 20th century, developing in parallel to the shift from rural to urban majority population, we've had these fucking cartoons anthropomorphizing our meat. Just as people forgot what producing food even looks like, we've introduced our children on a massive scale to the notion that animals are just smaller, cuter people. I'm furious that our meat industry is as insane and destructive as it is, but so long as that industry can paint its opposition as a bunch of fucking idiots comparing their operations to the holocaust, they'll continue to get away with murder (of ecosystems; I could give a shit about the livestock). The blood doesn't bother me, but the offal running into the water supply sure does.

    Right. Well said. I can find absolutely nothing to disagree with here but I feel like liming the whole thing would be silly.
    I missed nescientist's post (which is indeed well formed), but it's interesting that I also came to the conclusion that Disney is partially responsible.

    Enig on
    ibpFhR6PdsPw80.png
    Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    It's certainly not cheaper to produce, which was my point anyway. The corn that goes into that beef could feed 10x as many people as the beef does.

    The beef industry doesn't/didn't exist simply to feed people. There are plenty of byproducts.

    What you need to do is break down the cost and use we get from one cow and compare that to the cost and use we could get from the corn grown to feed that cow.

    Good point. We use animals for tons of things. It's probably a waste of time to actually make the calculation, not to mention it's very hard, but "feed more people with corn!" is just a simplistic argument.

    My dad likes to complain about the cost of steak now days. When he was a kid, it was cheap enough that his family was able to eat them quite regularly.

    I had to explain to him the whole change from an economy that had a high use for leather to one that has pretty much replaced leather with plastics.

    There are dozens of different uses for cows outside of meat.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    As a "this occurs in nature, therefore this is right" argument I'd say that the appeal to predators is a hell of a lot more convincing than the appeal to rapist chimps, if we disregard for a moment the fundamental bankruptcy of this argument structure in the first place. While our ancestors were almost certainly a bunch of rapists, it doesn't exactly require a doctorate in ethics to recognize that rape is bad, and doesn't (in the long run) benefit anyone. On the other hand, it's rather clear that our ancestors would in many cases not have survived if their societies had scorned predation as a method of survival. This has no bearing on our ability to survive in the age of iron supplements and protein shakes (not the dude, the drink), but it certainly has implications regarding the notion that humans are predators.

    I feel like it isn't really this cut and dry. Any given chimpanzee or dolphin or whatever rapes for the exact same reason any given chimpanzee or dolphin is a predator; the behavior benefited one of the individual's ancestors enough that the genes dictating said behavior were passed down. As far as Nature is concerned neither act is better or worse than the other.

    The only reason humans can see rape and go "jesus fuck that's awful" is because not only are we gifted with a theory of mind that allows us to consider the ramifications of behavior on other humans, but because the species has evolved to protect itself from individuals who discover ways to breed that ignore established channels like impressing mates.

    I want to make it clear here that fuck no I'm not defending rape. I'm just saying that if you want to make the point that predation is fine because Nature, and then say rape is immoral because it is, you have to understand that rape arises from the same kinds of evolutionary forces. Theoretically.

    BloodySloth on
  • Options
    EnigEnig a.k.a. Ansatz Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    As a "this occurs in nature, therefore this is right" argument I'd say that the appeal to predators is a hell of a lot more convincing than the appeal to rapist chimps, if we disregard for a moment the fundamental bankruptcy of this argument structure in the first place. While our ancestors were almost certainly a bunch of rapists, it doesn't exactly require a doctorate in ethics to recognize that rape is bad, and doesn't (in the long run) benefit anyone. On the other hand, it's rather clear that our ancestors would in many cases not have survived if their societies had scorned predation as a method of survival. This has no bearing on our ability to survive in the age of iron supplements and protein shakes (not the dude, the drink), but it certainly has implications regarding the notion that humans are predators.

    I feel like it isn't really this cut and dry. Any given chimpanzee or dolphin or whatever rapes for the exact same reason any given chimpanzee or dolphin is a predator; the behavior benefited one of the individual's ancestors enough that the genes dictating said behavior were passed down. As far as Nature is concerned neither act is better or worse than the other.

    The only reason humans can see rape and go "jesus fuck that's awful" is because not only are we gifted with a theory of mind that allows us to consider the ramifications of behavior on other humans, but because the species has evolved to protect itself from individuals who discover ways to breed that ignore established channels like impressing mates.

    I want to make it clear here that fuck no I'm not defending rape. I'm just saying that if you want to make the point that predation is fine because Nature, and then say rape is immoral because it is, you have to understand that rape arises from the same kinds of evolutionary forces. Theoretically.

    It's worth noting that the primary reason that rape is so awful in our society is because of the effect on the human victim.

    Enig on
    ibpFhR6PdsPw80.png
    Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Man have you ever tried to convince a lion to be a vegetarian? Why are we holding animals and humans to the same standards? If a dog shits on my carpet I'll be pissed but that doesn't mean the dog is crazy, but if Bob from Accounting shits on my carpet that is a much bigger issue.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010

    I don't say, "No, I'm a vegetarian and I don't want to risk you making something that will make vomit." Instead, I just say, "Sorry, I'm not hungry." At this point, I pretty much only accept fruit from strangers and I never mention that I'm a vegan to them because it causes more drama than it solves normally.

    This is something I meant to type. "No I'm not hungry" is what my friends say. If pressed, they'll say they are a vegetarian, and in a few examples, my mother made the effort to accommodate them.

    Also, I'll never understand the whole "no butter/milk" thing. Milking has absolutely no negative effect on cows. It actually has a positive effect on them since not milking them causes their udders to become very painful.
    Qingu wrote: »
    It's not particularly hard to make the broad calculation, considering how mechanistic factory-farming is, and the fact that it's simplistic doesn't mean that it's not valid.

    This doesn't apply to cows that are raised on pasture. but that meat is expensive.

    Look, you've made a statement and you need to back it up.

    What's more beneficial?

    The cow, considering all of it's byproducts?

    The corn, considering all of it's byproducts?

    You should include the cost of upkeep, harvesting, etc as well.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »

    I don't say, "No, I'm a vegetarian and I don't want to risk you making something that will make vomit." Instead, I just say, "Sorry, I'm not hungry." At this point, I pretty much only accept fruit from strangers and I never mention that I'm a vegan to them because it causes more drama than it solves normally.

    This is something I meant to type. "No I'm not hungry" is what my friends say. If pressed, they'll say they are a vegetarian, and in a few examples, my mother made the effort to accommodate them.

    Also, I'll never understand the whole "no butter/milk" thing. Milking has absolutely no negative effect on cows. It actually has a positive effect on them since not milking them causes their udders to become very painful.

    In terms of mass produced milking, it is the treatments that the cows go through in order to get them to produce that much milk.

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    It's certainly not cheaper to produce, which was my point anyway. The corn that goes into that beef could feed 10x as many people as the beef does.

    The beef industry doesn't/didn't exist simply to feed people. There are plenty of byproducts.

    What you need to do is break down the cost and use we get from one cow and compare that to the cost and use we could get from the corn grown to feed that cow.

    Good point. We use animals for tons of things. It's probably a waste of time to actually make the calculation, not to mention it's very hard, but "feed more people with corn!" is just a simplistic argument.
    It's not particularly hard to make the broad calculation, considering how mechanistic factory-farming is, and the fact that it's simplistic doesn't mean that it's not valid.

    This doesn't apply to cows that are raised on pasture. but that meat is expensive.

    "Use" is not a unit of measurement though. Even if we have tracked all the stuff we take from an animal the stuff that's not used for food is goign to be hard to compare to the food-stuff.

    And we should also take into account waste (failed crops, diseased animals) and transportation/accomodation costs.

    The fact that it's simplistic does make it useless. What if it turns out that at the end it's actually better to feed it to the cow than to feed it to the people?

    Julius on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »

    I don't say, "No, I'm a vegetarian and I don't want to risk you making something that will make vomit." Instead, I just say, "Sorry, I'm not hungry." At this point, I pretty much only accept fruit from strangers and I never mention that I'm a vegan to them because it causes more drama than it solves normally.

    This is something I meant to type. "No I'm not hungry" is what my friends say. If pressed, they'll say they are a vegetarian, and in a few examples, my mother made the effort to accommodate them.

    So long as you're not a dick about it, there should be no problem mentioning you're a vegetarian from the getgo. "I have a belief" is not an offensive statement. Sometimes you don't want to argue about whether you're hungry or not or play weird games and just want someone to know that no you do not want a hamburger now or ever but thanks for the offer.

    Also, I'll never understand the whole "no butter/milk" thing. Milking has absolutely no negative effect on cows. It actually has a positive effect on them since not milking them causes their udders to become very painful.

    I'd imagine for most vegans its about supporting the dairy industry (that they view as unethical), not that milking cows is somehow bad. Strangely, I've been accused of hypocrisy for drinking milk ("how dare your dietary restrictions not meet my preconceived standards of acceptance for what I don't believe") and I've had vegan friends pestered for not drinking milk.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010

    So long as you're not a dick about it, there should be no problem mentioning you're a vegetarian from the getgo. "I have a belief" is not an offensive statement. Sometimes you don't want to argue about whether you're hungry or not or play weird games and just want someone to know that no you do not want a hamburger now or ever but thanks for the offer.


    Right, but this goes back to what I just mentioned.

    If you go into someone's home and they offer to feed you, if you completely turn them down because you don't think that they can meet a dietary requirement they didn't know about, that edges you closer to to the "dick" territory. Especially so when you assume "non vegetarian" automatically means "no vegetables and everything cooked in butter". Edges you closer, cause that's on the verge of looking down on someone.
    Tarranon wrote: »

    In terms of mass produced milking, it is the treatments that the cows go through in order to get them to produce that much milk.

    I'm not aware of anything special done to dairy cattle that would be considered ill treatment.

    Dairy cattle are specifically bred to produce milk. Those that don't produce enough are sent to the beef industry instead.

    Other than that, they are fed a special diet so their milk doesn't taste foul and they are bred and give birth once a year.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »

    So long as you're not a dick about it, there should be no problem mentioning you're a vegetarian from the getgo. "I have a belief" is not an offensive statement. Sometimes you don't want to argue about whether you're hungry or not or play weird games and just want someone to know that no you do not want a hamburger now or ever but thanks for the offer.


    Right, but this goes back to what I just mentioned.

    If you go into someone's home and they offer to feed you, if you completely turn them down because you don't think that they can meet a dietary requirement they didn't know about, that edges you closer to to the "dick" territory. Especially so when you assume "non vegetarian" automatically means "no vegetables and everything cooked in butter". Edges you closer, cause that's on the verge of looking down on someone.

    Bullshit. "Want a hamburger?" "No thanks I'm vegan." "Oh is there anything else I can get you?" "Nah I'm good."

    Now if you say "No, you cannot make me any food because you are an unclean soul and a terrible person and should die in hell!" yeah you're a dick but that's not really related to being a vegetarian. You can say "no" and you can also explain why and neither of those things make you a bad person.

    If you're a strict vegan and want to abide by the restrictions you've placed on yourself and cook your own food, I don't see how that makes you a bad person. It doesn't mean you're looking down on somebody, it means you have a restriction you want to follow.

    This is kind of a ridiculous catch-22. If a vegan demands their host give them vegan food they're a terrible person, if they turn down food because they want to eat according to a vegan diet they're a terrible person. How about people can eat what they want and can refuse to eat what they want and so long as they're polite we won't worry about it?

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    I just don't see the point in people putting "I'm a vegetarian" behind it.

    To be fair, I could simply be projecting other behavior into it. Stuff I see even more common.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    I just don't see the point in people putting "I'm a vegetarian" behind it.

    To be fair, I could simply be projecting other behavior into it. Stuff I see even more common.
    I don't drink alcohol. If I turn down a drink in a social situation, I'm generally asked for a reason. During college, I just got into the habit of adding the reason to the polite declination.

    I would expect the same is true of vegetarians who regularly turn down dishes with meat in them.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    Niceguy MyeyeNiceguy Myeye Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    You do realize that there are many different kind of vegetarians and not everyone means the exact same thing when they say that they're vegetarian, right? The same goes for being vegan.

    It's not simply saying, "I'm a vegan" and then they automatically know exactly what to cook for you and how to cook it. You have to explicitly explain everything that you eat and don't eat with each person because every diet is different.

    I know that they are able to feed me. I just have to spend an inordinate amount of time detailing exactly what they can and can't use. That just isn't worth it unless I'm going to repeatedly eat at their place.

    I'd guess that the same goes for people who have Chrones or Colitis. If they eat something that they doesn't fit into their diet, then they will feel bad. I'd bet they also will often pass on offered food because it's just too much of a hassle to explain their diet.

    Niceguy Myeye on
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited May 2010
    So long as you're not a dick about it, there should be no problem mentioning you're a vegetarian from the getgo. "I have a belief" is not an offensive statement.

    It shouldn't be, but sometimes it is. I mentioned that I don't eat meat from factory farms in an IRC chatroom once, since it was tangential to the conversation, and was treated to about half an hour of someone talking about how natural eating meat is and how no one should ever treat animal suffering as relevant and a whole host of other stuff. From one line, the entire next half hour was dedicated to how vegetarianism is unnatural and therefore wrong, and how animals do suffer but it doesn't matter because meat's good.

    I mean, I guess I'm saying that you're right in an ideal world, but "I have a belief" is often taken very offensively, even the reasons for it are entirely benign.
    I'd imagine for most vegans its about supporting the dairy industry (that they view as unethical), not that milking cows is somehow bad. Strangely, I've been accused of hypocrisy for drinking milk ("how dare your dietary restrictions not meet my preconceived standards of acceptance for what I don't believe") and I've had vegan friends pestered for not drinking milk.

    Heh. You'll never please everyone.

    Shivahn on
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »

    So long as you're not a dick about it, there should be no problem mentioning you're a vegetarian from the getgo. "I have a belief" is not an offensive statement. Sometimes you don't want to argue about whether you're hungry or not or play weird games and just want someone to know that no you do not want a hamburger now or ever but thanks for the offer.


    Right, but this goes back to what I just mentioned.

    If you go into someone's home and they offer to feed you, if you completely turn them down because you don't think that they can meet a dietary requirement they didn't know about, that edges you closer to to the "dick" territory. Especially so when you assume "non vegetarian" automatically means "no vegetables and everything cooked in butter". Edges you closer, cause that's on the verge of looking down on someone.
    Tarranon wrote: »

    In terms of mass produced milking, it is the treatments that the cows go through in order to get them to produce that much milk.

    I'm not aware of anything special done to dairy cattle that would be considered ill treatment.

    Dairy cattle are specifically bred to produce milk. Those that don't produce enough are sent to the beef industry instead.

    Other than that, they are fed a special diet so their milk doesn't taste foul and they are bred and give birth once a year.

    Apart from the general cruelty that all industrial farm cattle are made to endure(it's not like cows are having the time of their lives before they go to the slaughterhouse; dairy cars also face similarly harrowing conditions), cows are given growth hormones that dramatically increase the amount of milk they produce, up to ten times the natural rate. Firstly, implying that you are doing them a solid by milking them is kind of silly since, you know, you created this situation in the first place, both through breeding and the hormonal treatments.

    Secondly, these hormonal treatments have well documented negative affects on the cows, not insignificantly being a sharp increase in the rate of mastitis, which in addition to being very painful, leads to abscesses on the teats. It's not a good time.

    To treat this, an issue that only arises because we are using these methods that create stress on the cow's system, farmers use the antibiotics I'm sure you've heard about, which carry their own health concerns. Wide scale use leading to antibiotic resistance being among them.

    and that
    is why
    some vegetarians aren't down with milk!

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    PerpetualPerpetual Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I think what the OP is saying is that, if someone is against eating meat on the basis that factory farms cause animals pain, then they should be equally against eating vegetables, because cutting down forests and clearing grasslands to make room for those vegetable farms is just as destructive to animals (due to the fact that it completely and often times irreversibly destroys their habitats). This is why vegetarianism as an ideology has no moral integrity.

    Which sounds quite reasonable, to me. Perhaps the problem is that he never stated it this way, and instead you guys dragged him into the ridiculous "plants don't feel pain lol" tangent. Then he left.

    Perpetual on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I think what the OP is saying is that, if someone is against eating meat on the basis that factory farms cause animals pain, then they should be equally against eating vegetables, because cutting down forests and clearing grasslands to make room for those vegetable farms is just as destructive to animals (due to the fact that it completely and often times irreversibly destroys their habitats). This is why vegetarianism as an ideology has no moral integrity.
    You don't need nearly as much land to grow food as you do to grow food for the animals and raise the animals you are going to eat. Unless you are talking about slash and burn farming, it isn't going to be nearly as destructive.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    I think what the OP is saying is that, if someone is against eating meat on the basis that factory farms cause animals pain, then they should be equally against eating vegetables, because cutting down forests and clearing grasslands to make room for those vegetable farms is just as destructive to animals (due to the fact that it completely and often times irreversibly destroys their habitats). This is why vegetarianism as an ideology has no moral integrity.

    Which sounds quite reasonable, to me. Perhaps the problem is that he never stated it this way, and instead you guys dragged him into the ridiculous "plants don't feel pain lol" tangent. Then he left.

    I'm not even a vegetarian, but I'm sorry this argument is beyond the pale. We have such incredible food production capabilities that our federal government will help you out if you promise not to flood the market with cheap produce.

    It absolutely does not compare to the production, process, and slaughter of our industrial cattle industry. If you value animal utility, the two approaches just do not compare.

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    PerpetualPerpetual Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    I think what the OP is saying is that, if someone is against eating meat on the basis that factory farms cause animals pain, then they should be equally against eating vegetables, because cutting down forests and clearing grasslands to make room for those vegetable farms is just as destructive to animals (due to the fact that it completely and often times irreversibly destroys their habitats). This is why vegetarianism as an ideology has no moral integrity.
    You don't need nearly as much land to grow food as you do to grow food for the animals and raise the animals you are going to eat. Unless you are talking about slash and burn farming, it isn't going to be nearly as destructive.

    I'm not sure. I'm definitely going to pick up the book mentioned in the OP because, according to its reviews on Amazon, it shows that agricultural practices are much more destructive than most people think.

    Perpetual on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    I'm not sure. I'm definitely going to pick up the book mentioned in the OP because, according to its reviews on Amazon, it shows that agricultural practices are much more destructive than most people think.
    Industrialized agriculture is indeed hugely destructive.

    Pointing this out is a complete non-sequitur re: the morality of eating animals.

    "I believe cutting spending during a recession is harmful to the economy."

    "Oh yeah? But American corporations are exploiting workers in third-world countries!"

    Qingu on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    Look, you've made a statement and you need to back it up.

    What's more beneficial?

    The cow, considering all of it's byproducts?

    The corn, considering all of it's byproducts?

    You should include the cost of upkeep, harvesting, etc as well.
    First, you switched from "cheaper" to "more beneficial." What the hell.

    Secondly, you know, I actually went and started looking shit up to support this when I realized it is so obviously true on the face of it that I'm not going to bother. X weight of corn is cheaper to produce than X weight of factory-farmed cow. This is simply not a controversial statement. In fact, it is nonsensical to claim otherwise, as it would be impossible to raise the cow on corn if the corn was just as expensive as the damn cow.

    Perhaps we are somehow talking past each other. This was originally in response to your claim that eating meat is cheaper than eating a vegetarian diet. From a consumer standpoint, the existence of $2/lb ground beef doesn't magically make this true, as there is $1/pound pasta and plenty of cheaper vegetarian objects of similar quality. From a producer standpoint, it is obviously not true, and the only reason beef is as cheap as it is to begin with is because cows are raised in Satanic conditions and the government has economic policies that favor producing an abundance of their feed crops.
    Also, I'll never understand the whole "no butter/milk" thing. Milking has absolutely no negative effect on cows. It actually has a positive effect on them since not milking them causes their udders to become very painful.
    Because most dairy cows are raised in horrifying and torturous conditions. I don't think there's any philosophical reason to be against milking cows per se, though I've heard some vegans just get grossed out by animal products in general.

    FYI: Peter Singer, the guy who wrote Animal Liberation, actually was ambivalent about eating humanely-raised, small farm livestock. His concern was that it would be difficult to verify that they weren't being abused, and so to err on the side of caution.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    I think what the OP is saying is that, if someone is against eating meat on the basis that factory farms cause animals pain, then they should be equally against eating vegetables, because cutting down forests and clearing grasslands to make room for those vegetable farms is just as destructive to animals (due to the fact that it completely and often times irreversibly destroys their habitats). This is why vegetarianism as an ideology has no moral integrity.
    You don't need nearly as much land to grow food as you do to grow food for the animals and raise the animals you are going to eat. Unless you are talking about slash and burn farming, it isn't going to be nearly as destructive.

    I'm not sure. I'm definitely going to pick up the book mentioned in the OP because, according to its reviews on Amazon, it shows that agricultural practices are much more destructive than most people think.

    But raising meat requires more agriculture plus the land for the meat. Despite many forms of agriculture being highly destructive, meat is going to worsen the impact.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Meat does some pretty abhorrent things to the land we use to raise it on. Pork in particular will render virtually any place it's produced on completely unusable for anything else.

    But at the same time, you can feed livestock with grain that isn't going to feed humans (either low value or locally produced by the farmers) and it's still the best way we have available to get proteins and such to most of the population.

    Once nuts and other protein sources become more mainstream we'll need to revisit the place of meat in our society. Until then, we work with what we've got.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    PerpetualPerpetual Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    I'm not sure. I'm definitely going to pick up the book mentioned in the OP because, according to its reviews on Amazon, it shows that agricultural practices are much more destructive than most people think.
    Industrialized agriculture is indeed hugely destructive.

    Pointing this out is a complete non-sequitur re: the morality of eating animals.

    "I believe cutting spending during a recession is harmful to the economy."

    "Oh yeah? But American corporations are exploiting workers in third-world countries!"

    It is not a non-sequitur. If a given form of food production is denied on the basis that it harms animals, then it stands to reason that we should also deny other forms of food production that are harmful to animals, even if the scale and extent of that harm is less. The conclusion logically follows from the premise.

    Perpetual on
  • Options
    saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Jason Todd wrote: »
    I find your generalizations about vegetarianism slightly insulting. Many vegetarians are not "young, impressionable" victims of propaganda.

    I am a vegetarian because I do not believe that humans are superior to animals simply because we can reason on a higher level. Pain is pain, and the intentional infliction of pain on a non-consenting party is ethically wrong.

    I do not believe that I am going to change the system, but I am not comfortable benefiting from the suffering of other sentient beings.

    How can I know what something else is feeling if it lacks language?

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    One car gets 100 mpg

    One car gets 4 mpg

    Both cars use gas

    Herego it stands to reason that miles per gallon is irrelevant because all cars use gas.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    I'm not sure. I'm definitely going to pick up the book mentioned in the OP because, according to its reviews on Amazon, it shows that agricultural practices are much more destructive than most people think.
    Industrialized agriculture is indeed hugely destructive.

    Pointing this out is a complete non-sequitur re: the morality of eating animals.

    "I believe cutting spending during a recession is harmful to the economy."

    "Oh yeah? But American corporations are exploiting workers in third-world countries!"

    It is not a non-sequitur. If a given form of food production is denied on the basis that it harms animals, then it stands to reason that we should also deny other forms of food production that are harmful to animals, even if the scale and extent of that harm is less. The conclusion logically follows from the premise.
    First of all, industrialized farming isn't harmful to animals anymore. It was harmful to the animals living on the prairies when we cut them down to establish vast monocultures. The continued use of those monocultures is not directly harming animals (though it is causing a huge amount of environmental problems)

    Secondly, this is not an argument against veg-ism. It has nothing to do with veg-ism. Many vegans and vegetarians would agree with said criticisms of industrialized monocultures and probably support local mixed farms, or would agree that doing so is better.

    Finally, "even if the scale and extent of that harm is less" is not something to gloss over. There is no perfectly sustainable and ecologically friendly farming practice that can support the current human population. The goal in any moral system should be to do the least amount of harm.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    PerpetualPerpetual Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    First of all, industrialized farming isn't harmful to animals anymore. It was harmful to the animals living on the prairies when we cut them down to establish vast monocultures. The continued use of those monocultures is not directly harming animals (though it is causing a huge amount of environmental problems)

    Umm, of course they are. Every time a field is harvested, 90% of field animals die horrible deaths under harvester blades and wheels. In addition, many animals that come to feast on the crops are either maimed by traps, or shot. Thirdly, pesticide use is still very common, and that also causes a whole bunch of issues.
    Secondly, this is not an argument against veg-ism. It has nothing to do with veg-ism. Many vegans and vegetarians would agree with said criticisms of industrialized monocultures and probably support local mixed farms, or would agree that doing so is better.

    That's a big "probably". I wonder how many vegetarians truly care.
    Finally, "even if the scale and extent of that harm is less" is not something to gloss over. There is no perfectly sustainable and ecologically friendly farming practice that can support the current human population. The goal in any moral system should be to do the least amount of harm.

    So you're saying that vegetarianism is not enough, and that we should all become vegans (since that arguably does even less harm).

    Next time I see a vegetarian I'm going to give them lots of shit for not having the balls to go all the way.

    Perpetual on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Man, trying to bitch out vegetarians because field mice get hit by harvesters is such a Maddox argument.


    Also, to the "no milk/eggs/whatever", I assume that most second-gen vegetarians just feel kind of gross eating a lot of animal products. My friend didn't like anything with gelatin because it was gross that it might be horse hoof. I mean like I wouldn't want to eat anything with cockroach in it, regardless of if I could tell it was there, and I don't care if someone hurts cockroaches.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Man, trying to bitch out vegetarians because field mice get hit by harvesters is such a Maddox argument.


    Also, to the "no milk/eggs/whatever", I assume that most second-gen vegetarians just feel kind of gross eating a lot of animal products. My friend didn't like anything with gelatin because it was gross that it might be horse hoof. I mean like I wouldn't want to eat anything with cockroach in it, regardless of if I could tell it was there, and I don't care if someone hurts cockroaches.

    Gelatin is kind of gross and unvegetarian. It is why you lose your vegan powers if you eat it.
    200px-Materials_Used_in_Gelatin_Production.svg.png

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    that sounds strangely nutritious. is gelatin actually nutritious? and if it isn't, why isn't it? shouldn't something with 27% bone have a lot of calcium?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    About the meat vs. veggie is more destructive for the environment thing. Why not sustainable farming instead? You get both products and it's less environmentally destructive than focusing on either, at least from what I understood from the Omnivore's Dilemma book.

    Of course, it probably couldn't sustain our current population/consumption levels, but that's a different thing.

    Dracil on
    3DS: 2105-8644-6304
    Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
    MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Sign In or Register to comment.