Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Vegans get their organic panties in a twist after discovering they've been lusting after meat for years   (news.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 328
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

24312 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2011 at 1:56 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



328 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-16 03:34:31 AM  

lewismarktwo: Vegans haven't been this gobsmacked since they realized half their shoes were made of leather. Wait till they realize it is impossible to take part in society without exploiting at least some animals!


Do you think that it is okay to engage in any behavior, as long as it is impossible to eradicate that behaviour completely from your life?

For instance, if I could show you that some of the goods that you buy contain a small element that involved a small amount of child labor, would you have to be in favor of child labor at all times and in all circumstances?
 
2011-04-16 03:34:52 AM  

hitchking: I eat meat and I love it too.


then buy grass fed, free range organic meat. moral dilemma solved.
 
2011-04-16 03:41:26 AM  

Tourney3p0: I wouldn't know. Can't really tell from a sentence fragment preview of a blog post. Good pick.


I posted three links and you only responded to one. Also, if you had clicked on the link in the post, it would have brought you to the full text. You're being deliberately disingenuous.


Tourney3p0: Ah, this is an argument to you and thus very important. Sad. Go cry about the hypocrisy of everything you've said in this thread while choking on some sausage. Think about where you went wrong, come back, and we'll talk.


Come on, man. I have not been even slightly dogmatic or inflammatory in this thread. I've talked about how I think it is morally wrong to eat meat, yet I struggle with my own inability to stop. I've made comments about how I think animals are capable of suffering, and that I think the meat industry causes enormous suffering to animals, and that therefore it is not moral to eat meat.

But I don't think I have given you any reason to believe that I'm just being a dick about it.
 
2011-04-16 03:45:25 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: That's impossible, the system's too young. It's full of debris; any spacecraft that stayed for long would get clobbered.


ISWYDT.

I now have this image of a vegetarian in an EVA suit at zero relative meeting a 3 kg rock at 20 kps. Then, their ship's spectrometer reports a tasty cooked-meat smell receding down-orbit...

By the way, if meat's so bad, why do I have pointy teeth and a digestive system designed to deal with it? Oh right, because meat is actually good for me in moderation.

/His car's batteries contained enough energy to fire a pound of bacon into the asteroid belt.
 
2011-04-16 03:48:54 AM  

hitchking: Mock26: I eat meat, and I love it!

Who am I to ignore millions of years of evolution?

I eat meat and I love it too.

But I don't justify it based on having evolved to eat meat. Do you think that it is morally correct to engage in any behavior that has existed in the human species for a long time?


bsolutely not! I find pooping abhorrent.
 
2011-04-16 03:50:05 AM  

Nimnom: At best your arguments would be a criticism of industrial farming methods, but not eating meat in and of itself.


log_jammin: then buy grass fed, free range organic meat. moral dilemma solved.


I think you are both right in that there is far less suffering caused by free-range grass-fed meat.

Wouldn't you agree with me, though, that eating that kind of meat is the least you can do? I mean, I can understand if people say, "Obviously animals are capable of suffering, but eating meat is important to me. I try to cut back, but when I do eat meat, I make sure it imposes the least suffering on the animal as possible."

I think that is a defensible position. I can't quite decide if I'm fully on board, but I think it's definitely defensible.

But, do you ensure that you only eat that kind of meat? I'm not trying to point fingers, but I've encountered this argument before. Honestly, it seems like people just say "Oh, but not all meat is morally bad!" and then just continue eating whatever they want. It's more of a way to change the subject ("if you feel uncomfortable, here's how to solve your problem!") than it is a way to actually address the issue.
 
2011-04-16 03:52:32 AM  
Misery and fear makes the meat taste better.

/they see me trollin', they hatin'
 
2011-04-16 03:52:55 AM  

lewismarktwo: Vegans haven't been this gobsmacked since they realized half their shoes were made of leather. Wait till they realize it is impossible to take part in society without exploiting at least some animals!


img.photobucket.com

"You think my shoes are made of leather?"
 
2011-04-16 03:55:50 AM  
If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat ?
 
2011-04-16 03:56:33 AM  

GrendelMk1: By the way, if meat's so bad, why do I have pointy teeth and a digestive system designed to deal with it? Oh right, because meat is actually good for me in moderation.


It was evolutionarily advantageous for humans to be able to chew and digest meat. That's why we have canine teeth and a digestive system that can digest animal flesh. But that doesn't mean it's a moral thing to do.

It's called the "naturalistic fallacy", and it describes an attitude that says "this thing exists in nature, therefore it is morally good." If you're interested in learning more about why your canine teeth cannot morally justify eating meat, this Wikipedia article (new window) is a good place to start.
 
2011-04-16 03:57:08 AM  
Well, I think they have a point. There are many vegans who are such because they don't want to be a part of animal cruelty. A vegan magazine should ensure that their business overall is true to that goal.

Also, I always figured that a cooking magazine would take pictures of the actual dishes. Seems pretty lazy and disingenuous to be taking stock pictures of other recipes and passing them off as the recipe in their book.

Anyway, where will the nude girls be protesting this latest outrage?
 
2011-04-16 03:57:33 AM  

Rastas: If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat ?


Actually, this is a pretty good point...

Shiat. I've got some thinking to do.
 
2011-04-16 03:58:11 AM  

hitchking: I think you are both right in that there is far less suffering caused by free-range grass-fed meat.


prove there is any suffering of free-range grass-fed animals.

hitchking: Honestly, it seems like people just say "Oh, but not all meat is morally bad!" and then just continue eating whatever they want.


I'm not the one in a moral moral dilemma over eating meat. You claim to be because pigs can hold their babies in their arms. I just offered you a solution to your dilemma. You cutting back means nothing. The same cow died whether you eat one burger or a whole brisket.

hitchking: ("if you feel uncomfortable, here's how to solve your problem!") than it is a way to actually address the issue.


It's not an issue to me. or most people for that matter. sorry.
 
2011-04-16 04:01:03 AM  
hitchking, if you feel that way you should consider going veg.. it's not that hard. the trickiest part is re-learning a whole new diet, since our western diet is pretty much centered around large meat-based dishes, with vegetables relegated to side-dishes and garnishes.

some of it also depends on where you live.. it's a lot easier here in northern california to be veg than in the mid-west too though. tons of veggie options at the store and in restaurants that you just dont see elsewhere.
 
2011-04-16 04:02:15 AM  

hitchking: Mock26: I eat meat, and I love it!

Who am I to ignore millions of years of evolution?

I eat meat and I love it too.

But I don't justify it based on having evolved to eat meat. Do you think that it is morally correct to engage in any behavior that has existed in the human species for a long time?


When it comes to things like eating and farking and thinking and breathing then HADES YES! we could engage in such behavior.

As for whether or not it is morally correct, well, I could care less about that because morals are completely and totally subjective. They are artificial constructs invented by man and as such one man's morality might be another man's immorality.
 
2011-04-16 04:02:45 AM  

log_jammin: prove there is any suffering of free-range grass-fed animals.


umm.. they still get killed don't they?
 
2011-04-16 04:03:22 AM  

frizzantik: Mock26: Who am I to ignore millions of years of evolution?

When did we evolve the internet again?


What does the internet have to do with humans being omnivores?
 
2011-04-16 04:04:00 AM  

frizzantik: umm.. they still get killed don't they?


and?
 
2011-04-16 04:06:28 AM  

frizzantik: log_jammin: prove there is any suffering of free-range grass-fed animals.

umm.. they still get killed don't they?


So what if they get killed? You kind of have to kill it in order to eat it. Grilling a living cow is just downright cruel.
 
2011-04-16 04:06:41 AM  

log_jammin: I'm not the one in a moral moral dilemma over eating meat. You claim to be because pigs can hold their babies in their arms. I just offered you a solution to your dilemma. You cutting back means nothing. The same cow died whether you eat one burger or a whole brisket.


A few corrections here:

1. I know you are not in a moral dilemma. That's why I didn't say, "thanks for the suggestion on the free range meat!"

2. I'm not in a moral dilemma because "pigs can't hold their babies in their arms." I offered that as a small illustration of the much broader point that animals suffer because of our practices of eating meat. That is why I have moral issues with eating meat- because it causes suffering to conscious creatures. I think you phrased it that way to downplay my concerns, and you did so in an intellectually dishonest way.

log_jammin: It's not an issue to me. or most people for that matter. sorry.


You don't have to apologize. I'm not new to the world, and I know most people don't have an issue with eating meat. I'm just trying to make the point here (as calmly and as rationally as I can) that we cause real suffering to other animals when we eat meat, and that there are real moral implications from that.
 
2011-04-16 04:07:10 AM  

rustybender: It is people like this blogger that continue to make it publicly acceptable to openly mock Vegans. Keep up the good work!

I've always found the endless Vegan quest to create vegan versions of meat dishes rather laughable. If meat is so disgusting, why do you spend so much time trying to recreate it in your cooking? Oh that's right, meat is tasty!



Actually plenty of vegans like meat perfectly fine, they just don't like the inhumane treatment and killing of animals to provide it.
 
2011-04-16 04:08:39 AM  

hitchking: GrendelMk1: By the way, if meat's so bad, why do I have pointy teeth and a digestive system designed to deal with it? Oh right, because meat is actually good for me in moderation.

It was evolutionarily advantageous for humans to be able to chew and digest meat. That's why we have canine teeth and a digestive system that can digest animal flesh. But that doesn't mean it's a moral thing to do.

It's called the "naturalistic fallacy", and it describes an attitude that says "this thing exists in nature, therefore it is morally good." If you're interested in learning more about why your canine teeth cannot morally justify eating meat, this Wikipedia article (new window) is a good place to start.


Oh, I'm sorry, you confused me with someone that shares your very specific moral code. You know what I find immoral? Parents denying their still-growing children a balanced diet for "moral" reasons. You know what else I find immoral? Pretending that things that aren't human are even vaguely close to as important as we are, and using this as a basis for pretending to be somehow "superior" or "morally correct".

You have an opinion, that's all. I look at a deer, I see a future receptacle for a high-velocity piece of jacketed lead. I look at a cow, I see future steaks and baseball gloves. I frankly don't CARE if it was "happy". I'm more concerned about human welfare, thanks.

It's still "evolutionarily advantageous" to get all the amino acids I need in the same meal. It's really nice to not need to very carefully balance my legumes and grains to make sure I don't make myself sick with a deficiency ;)

If you're so "morally concerned", become a serial killer. Best thing you can do is reduce the number of consumers, right? It's the right thing to do!
 
2011-04-16 04:09:52 AM  
Look, meat is not morally questionable.
Is it immoral for a lion to eat an antelope, because oif not, I wont be pondering the moral implications of my steak.
 
2011-04-16 04:11:00 AM  
this vegetarian's perspective: meh. No different than doctoring up any photo shoot for any magazine. Where has there ever been any truth to the grocery glossy rags anyway?

When most people learn I am a vegetarian, these things happen: 1) they ask if its OK to eat meat in front of me 2)they automatically justify why they only 'occasionally' eat meat 3) they tell me how great it is that I am so dedicated.

Truth is, I may be a horrible vegetarian. Yes, I eat lots of fruits, veggies and grains, but I don't check all the labels and as result have been known to consume items with 'beef flavor' and the like. I also wear leather, eat sushi and do not care if other eat meat around me. I certainly wouldn't biatch or lecture at them for it. I simply do it for myself because its healthier and I've honestly never cared for the taste either. I do care about animal welfare, but I know fully well that in our world of corporate farming, meat is a commodity that will likely not see a serious downgrade or disappear in my lifetime. I view leather as a byproduct that will continue to exist whether or not I participate in the food consumption. I see no reason not to buy it but I'd reconsider if/when meat consumption were to drastically drop.

On occasion, I meet the person who will poke fun at me with jokes about rabbit food. I guess I like the blunt honesty and mild friction, so I end up more comfortable with those types. :)
 
2011-04-16 04:11:17 AM  

log_jammin: frizzantik: umm.. they still get killed don't they?

and?


and.... do i really have to explain it, or are you just trollin?
 
2011-04-16 04:13:22 AM  

Mock26: Grilling a living cow is just downright cruel.


wut bout lobsters?
 
2011-04-16 04:14:25 AM  

hitchking: 2. I'm not in a moral dilemma because "pigs can't hold their babies in their arms." I offered that as a small illustration of the much broader point that animals suffer because of our practices of eating meat. That is why I have moral issues with eating meat- because it causes suffering to conscious creatures. I think you phrased it that way to downplay my concerns, and you did so in an intellectually dishonest way.


intellectually dishonest? nah. snarky? you bet.

However, that example of animals suffering doesn't exist with free range animals. so if you honestly feel that's an issue and honestly wanted to do something about it, you would stop buying/consuming meat from factory farms.

hitchking: we cause real suffering to other animals when we eat meat,


no. Some animals in our food chain suffer. some don't. If you have an issue with animals suffering you would not eat those animals that suffer.
 
2011-04-16 04:15:04 AM  

frizzantik: hitchking, if you feel that way you should consider going veg.. it's not that hard. the trickiest part is re-learning a whole new diet, since our western diet is pretty much centered around large meat-based dishes, with vegetables relegated to side-dishes and garnishes.

some of it also depends on where you live..


I completely agree. There are actually two decent vegetarian restaurants within walking distance of my house, and a couple of GREAT ones downtown.

I spent some time in southeast Asia, in a region where most people are Buddhist, and the vegetarian food was outstanding. It actually is a great counter-example to people who say that "people are made to eat meat!" or whatever. Literally hundreds of millions of Buddhists and Hindus go most of their lives without meat.

I think vegetarians have made an incredibly stupid strategic move by advocating an all-or-nothing choice. I think if they advertised the ethical issues of meat, the environmental impacts, the health side, etc, but then encouraged people to have two meat-free days a week (or two meat-free meals a day) or something like that, they'd be much better off. People can make incremental changes like that without triggering the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance that is such a natural result of considering the moral impact of eating meat.

For now, I try to cut back as much as I can. But if I'm back at my parents' house and my dad's been spending all day on a pot roast, I'll eat it. If I'm drunk at 3am and we stop by a burger joint, that cheeseburger is going down.
 
2011-04-16 04:15:33 AM  

frizzantik: and.... do i really have to explain it, or are you just trollin?


yeah you need to explain it, because suffering and dieing are not interchangeable words and one does not necessarily follow the other.
 
2011-04-16 04:18:32 AM  
hitchking: Serious question: : If you're so insistent on morally-pure goods, do you think we should stop buying sweatshop-made goods from Asia? What about produce picked by cruelly-treated laborers in the U.s. and Latina America? What about oil from the Middle East, where the governments who profit from it enforce Sharia law and other human rights offenses? Or any products from U.S. companies that ever perform ethical lapses? Do you only create about the animals who suffer in business? (Not to mention all the crap your taxes fund, assuming you pay them.)

/(It's 4 am and I'm bored at work, farking. i don't really care who's a troll)

jabelar: Also, I always figured that a cooking magazine would take pictures of the actual dishes. Seems pretty lazy and disingenuous to be taking stock pictures of other recipes and passing them off as the recipe in their book.


See, that's the part I find offensive, too.
 
2011-04-16 04:22:54 AM  
strihs.com

lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2011-04-16 04:28:17 AM  

log_jammin: frizzantik: and.... do i really have to explain it, or are you just trollin?

yeah you need to explain it, because suffering and dieing are not interchangeable words and one does not necessarily follow the other.


i think having your life taken must be the ultimate form of suffering.

yes it's better than making them suffer their entire life just to be killed, but in the end, the animal still ends up dead
 
2011-04-16 04:28:57 AM  
I'm a Vegan (and before you ask, I HATE PETA because of their anti-pit bull stance and other reasons). And I don't always trust the picture that I am seeing, esp when it comes to recipes. I would rather make the stuff myself than rather on a pic. That being said, it was a real dick move for them to do this.

and no, i didn't read the article. I am a bit drunk on Ouzo and Hank III, lol.
 
2011-04-16 04:29:42 AM  

hitchking:

I spent some time in southeast Asia, in a region where most people are Buddhist, and the vegetarian food was outstanding. It actually is a great counter-example to people who say that "people are made to eat meat!" or whatever. Literally hundreds of millions of Buddhists and Hindus go most of their lives without meat.



Odd. I also spent some time in SE asia, as did my father. Ok, he was a bit more shooty during his travels than I was, but still, we've both been there. Also, we happen to be (rather low-key, not very practicing) Buddhists.

Lack of meat in those places is primarily economics, not religion. Meat is just expensive, land-wise, to raise. The majority of Buddhists recognise that death is part of how the universe works, and that some things must die that others may live.

It's been my experience that you can make mama-san real happy by bringing meat to the kitchen.
 
2011-04-16 04:30:39 AM  

frizzantik: but in the end, the animal still ends up dead


Spoiler Alert; That happens anyways, no matter what.
 
2011-04-16 04:32:07 AM  

frizzantik: i think having your life taken must be the ultimate form of suffering.


really? cause I can think of things much much worse. I can also think of several ways to die that would be minus any suffering.
 
2011-04-16 04:33:01 AM  
lh6.googleusercontent.com

i'd like to see you tear through an animals uncooked skin with those teeth

all the evolution arguements in general are a joke considering almost no one eats uncooked meat.. the meat has to be cooked for it to be soft enough to eat.

our "claws" are equally worthless for tearing and killing animals. it's only with the aide of tools can we bring down all but the smallest prey

so yeah, tools and fire are needed for most people to eat meat. not sure what Darwin would have to say about that
 
2011-04-16 04:33:06 AM  

GrendelMk1: hitchking:

I spent some time in southeast Asia, in a region where most people are Buddhist, and the vegetarian food was outstanding. It actually is a great counter-example to people who say that "people are made to eat meat!" or whatever. Literally hundreds of millions of Buddhists and Hindus go most of their lives without meat.



Odd. I also spent some time in SE asia, as did my father. Ok, he was a bit more shooty during his travels than I was, but still, we've both been there. Also, we happen to be (rather low-key, not very practicing) Buddhists.

Lack of meat in those places is primarily economics, not religion. Meat is just expensive, land-wise, to raise. The majority of Buddhists recognise that death is part of how the universe works, and that some things must die that others may live.

It's been my experience that you can make mama-san real happy by bringing meat to the kitchen.

 
2011-04-16 04:33:28 AM  

GrendelMk1: Oh, I'm sorry, you confused me with someone that shares your very specific moral code. You know what I find immoral? Parents denying their still-growing children a balanced diet for "moral" reasons. You know what else I find immoral? Pretending that things that aren't human are even vaguely close to as important as we are, and using this as a basis for pretending to be somehow "superior" or "morally correct".


I did not confuse you with someone sharing my moral code. I was attempting to correct your fallacious argument. You were saying that the fact that you have canine teeth and a digestive system that can handle meat means that it is morally correct to eat meat. That just doesn't follow. There are better arguments for eating meat, and you make them in the next paragraph of your post.

As for "superior", I don't know who you are quoting, but it surely isn't me. At no point have I used the word superior, and I don't think I've implied any sort of judgmental attitude. I've been pretty open about eating meat myself. Honestly, I have tried to be as calm, rational, and as self-deprecating as I can be throughout this thread. If I've come across as flaunting a superior attitude, I apologize for the miscommunication.

GrendelMk1: You have an opinion, that's all. I look at a deer, I see a future receptacle for a high-velocity piece of jacketed lead. I look at a cow, I see future steaks and baseball gloves. I frankly don't CARE if it was "happy". I'm more concerned about human welfare, thanks.

It's still "evolutionarily advantageous" to get all the amino acids I need in the same meal. It's really nice to not need to very carefully balance my legumes and grains to make sure I don't make myself sick with a deficiency ;)


I am also more concerned about human welfare. If life-saving drugs need to be tested on animals, I'm all for it. If a person's life rested on eating an animal, I'd kill that animal with my bare hands.

There's no doubt that we should value human well-being more than animal well-being. But why is that? Why should we value human well-being more than other animals, and why should we value the well-being of other animals more than we value that of plants? I think the only sensible answer is the human capacity for conscious, subjective experience. Animals do not have the same capacity for that sort of experience- but they do have some capacity for it. I think we'd all agree that it is worse to kill a dolphin than a worm. Put simply, it feels like something to be a dolphin.

If you don't agree with me, let me ask if you have any pets. I have a dog, and it's perfectly obvious to me that my dog has some awareness and can feel some basic emotions. That's why I should go to jail if I beat him to death. Even if you see a deer as a repository for a bullet, would you be comfortable slowly torturing a deer to death? Skinning it alive as it writhed in agony? I hope not- it's simply wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on other animals.

Now, your nutrition argument is much more legitimate. I would respond with: i) hundred of millions of Buddhists and Hindus live their entire lives without meat, ii) I would never suggest that people shouldn't eat any meat at all if it would be a serious risk to their health, and, most importantly, iii) that still leaves (what I think should be) the default position: you eat meat, but you do everything you can to make sure that the animals you are eating lived decent lives with a minimal amount of suffering. Free-range, grass-fed, etc. It's literally the least we should do.
 
2011-04-16 04:39:40 AM  

frizzantik: i'd like to see you tear through an animals uncooked skin with those teeth

all the evolution arguements in general are a joke considering almost no one eats uncooked meat.. the meat has to be cooked for it to be soft enough to eat.

our "claws" are equally worthless for tearing and killing animals. it's only with the aide of tools can we bring down all but the smallest prey

so yeah, tools and fire are needed for most people to eat meat. not sure what Darwin would have to say about that


so you're saying that humans didn't eat meat before we had fire?
 
2011-04-16 04:42:08 AM  

hitchking: It actually is a great counter-example to people who say that "people are made to eat meat!" or whatever.


yep.. humans are omnivores.. we are excellent adapters.. some societies like those in Asia eat pure vegetarian diets, and some like the Innuit in Alaska survived almost purely on seal meat and blood.

The human body can survive on anything practically. In modern society today, eating animals is a choice. People choose to eat meat because they enjoy its taste, not for any biological or evolutionary reason.

Some people don't have a problem with that.. everyone is different. I didn't really have a moral problem with it until long after I became a vegetarian.. it was actually something unexpected when I started to feel morally opposed to killing and eating animals. It's still not something I really even mention except to other veggies and here in fark threads though ;)
 
2011-04-16 04:45:51 AM  

log_jammin: so you're saying that humans didn't eat meat before we had fire?


that is exactly what i'm saying.. i just got out of my time machine and saw it with my own eyes.
 
2011-04-16 04:46:05 AM  

frizzantik: People choose to eat meat because they enjoy its taste, not for any biological or evolutionary reason.


we enjoy the taste because of evolutionary reasons. Just like we are repulsed by rotting meat for evolutionary reasons.

as for biological reasons...you can't think of any biological reasons to eat animal proteins and fats?
 
2011-04-16 04:47:09 AM  

Wrong_Intentions: Serious question: : If you're so insistent on morally-pure goods, do you think we should stop buying sweatshop-made goods from Asia? What about produce picked by cruelly-treated laborers in the U.s. and Latina America? What about oil from the Middle East, where the governments who profit from it enforce Sharia law and other human rights offenses? Or any products from U.S. companies that ever perform ethical lapses? Do you only create about the animals who suffer in business? (Not to mention all the crap your taxes fund, assuming you pay them.)


Yeah, I try to be conscious of the suffering imposed by what I buy. Remember, I do eat meat, so I'm not sitting here on some high horse in judgment of everyone. Now, the sweatshop thing is tough, because it's not clear that boycotting those goods would actually reduce the suffering of those workers. The Economist had a really interesting set of articles a few years ago where they tried to counter-act some of these boycotts. Their argument went like this: i) cheap labor (often provided by children) was a depressing feature of European economies up until the 1800s, ii) if those factories close down, the children don't enroll in some private school, they join militias or become prostitutes, iii) the "sweatshop" phase tends to last a generation or two until the population is more urban and educated, and then it's over (this is why you don't see "Made in Taiwan" on cheap trinkets anymore).

I'm definitely willing to be persuaded otherwise on that argument. But I think your more general question was, "Do you try to be ethical in most of your consumer behavior or do you have some bias on the meat issue?" To that, I'd say that I don't think I have any particular bias on the meat issue.

GrendelMk1: Lack of meat in those places is primarily economics, not religion. Meat is just expensive, land-wise, to raise. The majority of Buddhists recognise that death is part of how the universe works, and that some things must die that others may live.


I was actually in Taiwan, and an average Taiwanese person is about as wealthy as the average Italian. I just did a quick check on Wikipedia, and it seems as though Taiwanese Buddhists are more likely to be vegetarian than other Buddhists.

I'm sure that economics plays some factor, of course. Remember, at no point was I suggesting that the very fact that they are vegetarians provides support for my moral argument- I was saying it was evidence for the fact that there aren't many harmful nutritional effects of a vegetarian diet.
 
2011-04-16 04:47:25 AM  

frizzantik: that is exactly what i'm saying.. i just got out of my time machine and saw it with my own eyes.


seriously. Is that what you meant? Because that's what you seemed to be implying. and that would just be silly.
 
2011-04-16 04:51:39 AM  

log_jammin: frizzantik: People choose to eat meat because they enjoy its taste, not for any biological or evolutionary reason.

we enjoy the taste because of evolutionary reasons. Just like we are repulsed by rotting meat for evolutionary reasons.

as for biological reasons...you can't think of any biological reasons to eat animal proteins and fats?


Oh, there are plenty of reasons. But this is the naturalistic fallacy again. Simply because it may be evolutionarily advantageous to do so does not mean it is morally justifiable to do so.

This is obviously an inflammatory example, and I'm not trying to compare eating meat to rape, but there may be a real evolutionary advantage for men who have the desire to rape women. I don't know if that's true, but if we found out that it was (that men with a strong urge to rape women were more likely to have offspring), would that make it morally justifiable?
 
2011-04-16 04:52:27 AM  

hitchking: GrendelMk1: Oh, I'm sorry, you confused me with someone that shares your very specific moral code. You know what I find immoral? Parents denying their still-growing children a balanced diet for "moral" reasons. You know what else I find immoral? Pretending that things that aren't human are even vaguely close to as important as we are, and using this as a basis for pretending to be somehow "superior" or "morally correct".

I did not confuse you with someone sharing my moral code. I was attempting to correct your fallacious argument. You were saying that the fact that you have canine teeth and a digestive system that can handle meat means that it is morally correct to eat meat. That just doesn't follow. There are better arguments for eating meat, and you make them in the next paragraph of your post.

Careful now, my original post didn't say jack about morals. Actually, my original thought process was amusement at the thought of a spacecraft full of vegans dropping out of FTL in the Vega system and having a wee EVA accident. Then I mentioned the teeth by way of "Built for meat". No giant moral screed.

As for "superior", I don't know who you are quoting, but it surely isn't me. At no point have I used the word superior, and I don't think I've implied any sort of judgmental attitude. I've been pretty open about eating meat myself. Honestly, I have tried to be as calm, rational, and as self-deprecating as I can be throughout this thread. If I've come across as flaunting a superior attitude, I apologize for the miscommunication.
Try not flaunting, it works much better than having to constantly back up and apologise.

Points for the calm, but you DO need to tone anything that even smells like condescension down if you want anyone to listen to an unpopular viewpoint.


GrendelMk1: You have an opinion, that's all. I look at a deer, I see a future receptacle for a high-velocity piece of jacketed lead. I look at a cow, I see future steaks and baseball gloves. I frankly don't CARE if it was "happy". I'm more concerned about human welfare, thanks.

It's still "evolutionarily advantageous" to get all the amino acids I need in the same meal. It's really nice to not need to very carefully balance my legumes and grains to make sure I don't make myself sick with a deficiency ;)

I am also more concerned about human welfare. If life-saving drugs need to be tested on animals, I'm all for it. If a person's life rested on eating an animal, I'd kill that animal with my bare hands.

There's no doubt that we should value human well-being more than animal well-being. But why is that? Why should we value human well-being more than other animals, and why should we value the well-being of other animals more than we value that of plants? I think the only sensible answer is the human capacity for conscious, subjective experience. Animals do not have the same capacity for that sort of experience- but they do have some capacity for it. I think we'd all agree that it is worse to kill a dolphin than a worm. Put simply, it feels like something to be a dolphin.

If you don't agree with me, let me ask if you have any pets. I have a dog, and it's perfectly obvious to me that my dog has some awareness and can feel some basic emotions. That's why I should go to jail if I beat him to death. Even if you see a deer as a repository for a bullet, would you be comfortable slowly torturing a deer to death? Skinning it alive as it writhed in agony? I hope not- it's simply wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on other animals.

None of this MATTERS. It's established by tens of thousands of years of tradition and habit, plus millions of years of evolution, that WE EAT HERBIVORES. Omnivores in a pinch, carnivores just taste nasty. And yeah, I've eaten things that mostly eat meat. How this specific meal got to my plate isn't something I have a lot of control over. I live in a city with millions of people in it. All of us need to eat. The days when I could shoot all my meat are long gone.

And y'know what? I have my suspicions that certain cetaceans may meet the requirements to be considered fully sentient, if they could be tested "right". And they STILL have fark-all to do with that incredibly stupid cow I ate a piece of last night.

And finally, I had a cat from when I was born to when I moved out at 18. The SAME cat for the entire span. His name was Merlin, he weighed about 14 pounds, and I loved that cat unreservedly. Tell me where I might get my steak that they purposely torture the meat before it dies? Oh right, speaking of fallacies...



Now, your nutrition argument is much more legitimate. I would respond with: i) hundred of millions of Buddhists and Hindus live their entire lives without meat, ii) I would never suggest that people shouldn't eat any meat at all if it would be a serious risk to their health, and, most importantly, iii) that still leaves (what I think should be) the default position: you eat meat, but you do everything you can to make sure that the animals you are eating lived decent lives with a minimal amount of suffering. Free-range, grass-fed, etc. It's literally the least we should do.


i)Like I said, economics. Offer most of them meat, THEY EAT IT. Happily, gratefully, with a smile. ii)So why'd you even start in here? iii)Seriously, given 7+ billion people, not going to happen. Suck it up, or start cutting the population. Choose.
 
2011-04-16 05:01:12 AM  

log_jammin: frizzantik: that is exactly what i'm saying.. i just got out of my time machine and saw it with my own eyes.

seriously. Is that what you meant? Because that's what you seemed to be implying. and that would just be silly.


my point was that homo-sapiens isn't built to catch and eat meat like a "carnivore". Our teeth are not sharp enough to pierce most animal hide, and our jaws not strong enough to rip flesh from bone. Our intelligence allows us other ways to kill them and cook them, and our digestive system will handle them....

Because we're omnivores. We're built to handle all sorts of diets.

In today's society, there is no biological necessity to eat meat. One can be perfectly healthy eating a vegetarian diet, and it's not significantly more difficult to do.

Therefore: eating meat is a choice people make because they enjoy the taste of it.

Some people find that morally wrong, other don't. If you like to do it, then that is perfectly legal, and most people would not only support you, but join you.
 
2011-04-16 05:04:26 AM  
Woohoo, a Meat v. Veggie thread so I get to throw these out.

"My ancestors didn't claw their way to the top of the food change so I could eat carrots."

"There is room for all God's creatures...right next to the mashed potatoes."

"Cloned meat...It's Deja Stew!!!"

"When a Vegan scientist invents a meat flavored vegetable, we'll talk."

"Vegetables don't even have a chance to run away. Where's the sport in that?"

"Good drink...good meat....good God let's eat!!!"

"If it has eyeballs, I'll eat it!"

"I prefer to eat things that once had a soul."

/Proud Carnivore
 
2011-04-16 05:07:20 AM  

hitchking: Oh, there are plenty of reasons. But this is the naturalistic fallacy again. Simply because it may be evolutionarily advantageous to do so does not mean it is morally justifiable to do so.


It's not the "naturalistic fallacy" because I never said that because it may be evolutionarily advantageous to eat meat it must be moral.

I'm saying the eating of meat is neither moral or immoral.
 
Displayed 50 of 328 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report