Printable View
But this steak sure is tasting lovely right now. My Mom was thinking while she was cooking dinner tonight about how mean it is how we get our meat, and she presented her thoughts to me. I agreed. Of course, she had already been cooking the steak, so we shouldn't let it go to waste, right?
Anyway, what do you think of vegetarianism? Would you become a vegetarian? Insert question here, etc.
Discussion nowz.
For the past four weeks I've been a vegetarian. I actually found it an easier lifestyle change to make than I thought it would be. I've only really been vegetarian (and fizzy drink and chocolate free) for four weeks to prove a point to myself and to others, but I must say the time has flown by. I think it's an admirable choice if people want to live their lives like that but - personally - I enjoy eating meat and am looking forward to eating meat again on Friday.
I do think that the conditions in which many farm animals are raised is cruel and I do think that more should be done to improve conditions, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't eat meat as a result of those things. I'm glad that there's been more of a media and governmental focus on these conditions in the past few years and I hope conditions will continue to improve at home and abroad. I do think that part of the reason why the cruelty is there in the first place is in order to keep prices down and I think if animals were raised with sufficient care and quality of living, then people would be upset about a possibly rise in the cost of meat, but that doesn't justify it.
I don't get vegetarians, in the end they eat plants which are alive. Regardless your hurting a living thing, so might as well taste the more delicious ones.
Vegetarianism is a complete failure at life. The vast majority of amino acids we get are from meat. Not eating meat is like holding your breath for thirty seconds at a time.
My best friend is a vegitarian.
I wouldnt be one personally but I will respect people who are, I am always curious as to why they chose to be vegitarians.
Nope, i like meat, and even though its not essential to our living, like so many things(like cars), i still enjoy it very much.
I only eat lean meat anyway, and such meat only comes from animals who at least have a little space.
I would rather more worry about all the people who starve to death or are mistreated in gruisome ways, then the life of an animal.
I am concerned with the factory farming methods we use to harvest most of out meat, but I believe meat is food. Result? I eat less meat.
It seems like a lot of people forget that's an option.
Anasia ruined it for everyone.
Well, my mother has been vegetarian for around 20 years, and she seems just fine from it. I was vegetarian growing up, until I was maybe 15 or 16, and I still grew up big and strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Maxx Power
Meat is extremely useful for certain things, but it is far from the exclusive source of anything. A sensible vegetarian diet can provide everything necessary to be healthy.
I was a vegetarian for nearly a year when I was 16, I believe. I feel like it could have been a good thing, if I wasn't such a picky eater and so used to eating chicken with everything. As a result, I couldn't eat many things beyond pasta and rice, and as a result gained quite a bit of weight. I wasn't an educated vegetarian, so it wasn't good for me. But oh well, it was a good experience. I think being vegetarian can be VERY healthy if it's done sensibly.
I don't eat very much animal meat now anyway, honestly. Chicken is the only thing I have very often, since my family is hooked on chicken. That aside, I rarely have things like burgers, spare ribs, etc.
You, me and a boxing ring says carnivorism comes out top. :fencing:Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
There's a difference between eating a plant and the inhumane treatment of animals before they are brought to your plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000X
I think this is what non-vegetarians say when they are in denial. I've grown up with vegetarians and I've been one for most of my life. And totally since 1993. My doctor can tell you that I am not suffering or lacking anything. All vegetarians that I knew/know were/are strong, healthy people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Maxx Power
Given that I've been eating meat happily for about five years now, I'd hardly say this would teach us anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Maxx PowerYou, me and a boxing ring says carnivorism comes out top. :fencing:Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Except that I can kick your ass ;)
BRING IT OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Most of my cousins are vegetarian, but I need meat.
I say this is the best thing vegeteriasm has done for us yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Maxx PowerBRING IT OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Just know where your meat comes from. No reason to look at a few bad farms and say that alone is reason to swear off all meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeezaThere's a difference between eating a plant and the inhumane treatment of animals before they are brought to your plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000X
Also I don't get why people say "Inhumane treatment of animals", their not humans so it's inhumane whatever we do to them.
As far as the farm things go, I don't see why people make a big deal. The ones where they stuff a hundred in a cage meant for 2, ya that's not good. Otherwise they aren't guests at a Marriot, their being raised to be killed and eaten. There's no reason to treat them like it's a day spa when at the end their just gonna chop their heads off.
I'm not a vegetarian. I haven't personally known any people who are vegetarians either.
Eeh...I don't care much for meat, only because I don't like the taste too much. It's awful whenever we have steak. My parents force me to eat some even though they know that I won't eat more than a few bites. Then they have a hissy fit when I don't finish it.
I don't think it would be worth it in the end :(
Well now you know how I felt towards vegetables when I was a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪
B-BUT VEGETABLES ARE GOOD AND GOOD FOR YOU!
Vegetables taste like chicken..
If it were made readily available, I would buy 100% free range/grass fed products. I try very hard to get organic and free range meat products whenever I can. And I try not to support fast food chains/restaurants where I know they're not using meat products that were treated humanely before they were prepared for human consumption.
Cause even though I love eating meat and I would never give it up, I dislike the conditions at a lot of meat producing factories. I fully support a more humane and ethical treatment of animals. Just cause we have to kill 'em to eat 'em doesn't mean that it has to be done cruelly.
Meat is so so lovely. I couldn't do without it, I just couldn't.
If you're happy knowing you're the reason why the dinosaurs died.
Vegetarianism is something of a false name; it implies that you're eating only vegetables, rather than abstinence from meat. Other than the stupid and misleading name, I'm fine with it in theory, and as long as you feel you're getting what you need, where's the problem with that? More steak for me. No, I would never. I know what crap goes on my hormone induced foods. I'll still eat it because it tastes better than that green stuff.
What's with this humane talk? Their not human ergo they can't be treated humanely. It can be ethical or moral, but not humane when a human isn't involved.
Am I the only one bothered by the misuse of the word Humane in this context? >.>
im with denis leary
there might come the day where everything is seaquest/firefly style (all made of protein and genetically engineered) that will be a sad day where we sever our ties to 50000 years of historyQuote:
i feel like wimp going into a vegetarian place, "what would you like, broccoli?" broccoli's a side dish people always has always will be. i say " what do you think i want, i want some raw red right here right now!! better yet bring me a live cow over to the table, i carve off what i want and ride the rest home!!!" and you want to know why, cuz meat tastes like murder and murder tastes pretty smurf damn good!!!
if I didn't eat meat, I'd have to eat salad :barf:
lets just look at the facts money wise:
junkfood < normal food < healthy food that tastes bad < organic food that tastes bad < healthy food that tastes good
being vegetarian is rich people talk.. A poor research sholar like me can only afford whats cheapest in america.. the dollar menu at mcdonalds xD XD
Everything tastes bad without a few slabs of meat tossed onto it.
Salad? Add some chicken!
Escargot? Place some steak on it!
Bacon? Add more bacon!
I could care less about vegetarians as long as they keep to themselves or don't push their beliefs on me. To each his/her own.
I could never give up, meat, though.
I tried for half a month, and it was too painful. There are certain types of protein that make me feel happy in my tummy, and I don't get those from beans and nuts, thanks ><.
Needs some sausage and melted cheese bits. Otherwise I would agree. That salad thing is right on the dot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagensyg
Tofu is delicious when done right. But I don't think I'd be able to live on it.
You would ruin a perfectly good steak with snails?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagensyg
..thats just wrong.
Although i suppose mushroomsauce on it wouldnt be much different..
Sometimes I go for a good week without eating meat without realizing it. But I do enjoy it sometimes, but I prefer free range meat. There aer pleanty of other sources of protein, like nuts, tofu, and milk to name a few.
In the netherlands there is dairy based meat that tastes just like chicken. but of course.. awfully expensive
Vegetarianism? Fine by me. I eat meat often enough, but if someone chooses a vegetarian diet - and understands the hows and whys - then I support their decision. When I'm cooking for myself, I prepare vegetarian dishes as often as not.
In response to ethical concerns about livestock treatment: I buy responsibly, favouring producers that are known to look after their animals well. Free-range eggs cost nearly twice as much, but it's worth it, in my opinion.
It bothers me that vegetarians often claim their diet is wholly ethical to animals, though. Commercial crops are planted by clearing habitable forests or scrub and replacing them with crops; animals lose their habitat and food supply. Harvesting plants for consumption deprives further animals of food. Keeping 'pests' - birds or insects - at bay means that those creatures are forced either to starve, or to relocate to a new location where they'll be competing with the local wildlife. Just because you're not devouring an animal's flesh is no guarantee that your food was produced without animal suffering.
Nevertheless, there'd be something reassuring about knowing that no animals were directly killed in order for you to eat them. And a vegetarian diet can indeed be just as nutritionally sound, as long as it's done properly.
Humane from dictionary.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000X
1. characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses.
Wow, I can see there is a few bits of misinformation and lack of knowledge about vegetarism in this thread.
I am not a vegetarian pr. definition as I eat game and wild fish. But I do not eat any kind of industrial meat, nor do I eat milk or egg (or products that contain those things) that aren't organic. This because I do not think it's wrong to slay and eat animals, as that is how nature works. But I do believe the meat industry is disgusting, to put it gently, and therefore will have as little as possible do with it.
I really like meat, but I've many times thought of becoming a vegetarian.. or at least cutting back on the meat. I think the latter is something I'll probably end up doing at some point in the near future.
Also, organic food ftw.
This I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
As for my position now:
I like meat. I eat meat because I like it, not because I need it or 'need' it. I accept that living beings die for nothing more than my enjoyment, because I know a vegetarian diet can be a complete diet. Putting aside for the moment the issue of how they are treated when alive, I cannot abdicate facing the fact that living beings, some of them very intelligent (Pigs for instance), are dying for my pleasure.
So I am okay eating meat. I accept that there is blood on my hands. But I try to get meat from farms which treat animals well, too. I don't give a flying frack about organic or any other paranoid hippy dogma/bull:skull::skull::skull::skull: marketing strategy like that, but I do look out for free-range stuff, as I believe that does actually matter and make a difference. I'm not deluded into thinking that everything marked free range actually is free range - there's still plenty of bull:skull::skull::skull::skull: marketing there - but I believe there is a difference between killing an animal food (Although that is still an ethical issue, it is at least biologically sound to eat meat*) versus torturing an animal (Which I abhor); ideally free range animals have not been tortured.
* Still, I don't feel comfortable using any argument which essentially boils down to "It's natural". Poisonous snakes are natural. Rape and murder are natural. Cancer is natural. The mere fact that something is natural is not justification for it, so I'm never sure how solid the ground I am on here is.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeezaHumane from dictionary.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000X
1. characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses.
I got mine from the Webster's Dictionary website. It's a bit different of a definition on there it seems.
I seriously entertain this line of thought, and thus have no moral qualms about eating anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000X
From a nutritional standpoint, eating more vegetables is good for you.
The difference between eating a plant and an animal, to me, is that one is sentient, and one is not. :p
I have an excellent example to show what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentarou
In my left hand I have a gerbil. In my right hand I have a potted plant.
If I set fire to the gerbil, what will be your reaction?
What if I set fire to the plant? What if I set fire to a tree? Rip a sapling off the ground? Cover a plant in darkness?
Why is it morally neutral to mistreat plants? Cognitive Dissonance? I think so.
A fish could hardly be considered sentient.
The difference is that I can relate to the Gerbil's pain, and not the plant's. The Gerbil expresses things I can recognize, and cringe at the thought of. The Gerbil can produce desires, dislikes, and likes, while the Plant cannot make anymore meaning for itself, because it lacks sentience.Quote:
Originally Posted by PureghettoI have an excellent example to show what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentarou
In my left hand I have a gerbil. In my right hand I have a potted plant.
If I set fire to the gerbil, what will be your reaction?
What if I set fire to the plant? What if I set fire to a tree? Rip a sapling off the ground? Cover a plant in darkness?
Why is it morally neutral to mistreat plants? Cognitive Dissonance? I think so.
that's you, kenta. Personally I feel sick to my stomach when trees get uprooted or flowers keeled over by frost. and that's just in the natural world, let alone razing land for housing developments.
I think it has to do with a girl telling me when I was six that wood can feel pain. I saw immediately that it couldn't be true, but it did open up the truth that plants need to be respected.
I guess ill say this now..
Some things are to be expected.. inevitable, one might say.
When you are living with millions of people on small pieces of land, it is impossible to keep nature the same way it is.
Animals are stored in small spaces so there is more meat to eat and cheaper, woods get cut to make place for houses..
The fact just is, that we are too overpopulated in most countries to be succesful vegetarians. Already woods are being cut by the football field to make place for coffeebean farms..
The thing about ranch meat is, is that the animals are kept in places where there is space. But with the way we just keep building and the population grows, those things will become more expensive and will eventually disappear.
I dont like it.. but thats just the way economics work.
I only eat vegetarian things.
Like cows.
hurr hurr hurr hurrQuote:
Originally Posted by Harle-Quin
Completely false. The amount of land required to raise animals is far, fair higher than the amount of land required to grow crops for Humans. Crop farming is far more space-efficient than husbandry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
I just meant that the healthier the food, the more expensive its going to get..Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
America still has lots of space, but in the netherlands the farmers have trouble staying afloat, because of the lack of space(expensive machines, little crop in comparison) the price of the crop is high compared to whatever is exported from america(since they have lots of space) and the goverment has to buy up stuff..
Pig farmers dont seem to have the same problem though.
Naturally it has to be respected. Life itself can't be graded from life form to life form. Plants act as an important part of our world, in all ecosystems. But naturally, I'd have a lot more of a reaction from a burned alive gerbil than a small tree, because the gerbil is a more similar creature to me that I am able to relate to. The only justification I can have for that is that plants have less a mind than we do from what we can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
You have to eat something that used to be alive in order to live.
Unless you eat fruits and drink water, that is.
Fruits were alive, though. Or do they not count for some odd and unknown reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pureghetto
Well fruits are more or less the eggs of plants. Their still technically a body part of a plant your eating.
Also I can't believe no one's touched on the sentience then. So unless the definition I use is wrong (and ergo the definition I've read about for ages) sentience is something only inherent to humans because only we are fully self-aware of our surroundings and ourselves unlike animals who just eat, sleep, and poop their entire lives.
But enough of silly definitions.
I suppose that depends on your definition of alive. I can agree that the fruit is the egg of a plant, though.
To me, sentience has always been somewhat of an abstract word. I use the word sentience when referring to an animal that can have desires besides the will to live, but I never actually looked the word up.
Fruits are designed, evolutionarily, to be eaten. The animal then walks elsewhere, defecates, and thus 'pollinates' the plant.
So again, just eat fruits and you can be morally perfect.
I dislike vegetarianism. I prefer to eat different types of meat and fish because I hate fruits and vegetables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentarou
Did you see my thoughts about why eating plants and crops is inherently harmful to animals? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Pureghetto
Eh, it's your choice.
I really never got this argument. Why the hell do I care what YOU eat?
I have been meat-free for almost three years and a vegan for almost a year. I am healthier then I have ever been in my life.
In my opinion, veganism is the next step of the ethical evolution of human beings on this planet. It is plain and simple that the domestication of animals is just as morally apprehensible as slavery, rape, sexism, genocide and racism. Animal agriculture is polluting the planet, contributing to the hunger crisis, and encourages a growing disparage between the upper and lower classes.
Just another biological note, plants do not have nerve endings or a central nervous system, and therefore lack any ability to think or feel pain. Animals on the other hand possess nerve endings, a central nervous system, and the ability to 'will.'
As for the sentience argument, it is a slippery slope. If it is all right to enslave, torture, and treat another being as property, because we can dominate it, this can easily justify many atrocities we have committed between human beings. Infanticide is considered morally abhorrent in most cultures, yet a baby is not sentient, it is easy to dominate, and it is a parasite. Most consider the notion of 'putting to sleep' a person of low intelligence wrong, but this action would be no different then the slaughter of the common pig or even chicken.
Please don't double post. - Azar
Isn't that kind of an oxymoron in a way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashini
You know I wonder if there's groups out there that are working on the ethical treatment of plants and various other forms of life we consider "Too below us" to care about and exploit. I mean there's so many people spouting nonsense about animals when there's a whole another 90% of a planet full of life we're ignoring for a small population with a face.
Don't really have any arguments with or against vegetarianism. I tried to be at some point of my life but it didn't really agree with me since I don't enjoy most vegetables but can some fruits.
As for meat, I don't eat red meat, but I do like including chicken or fish in my meals. My being a picky eater is probably a whole other league on its own.
I could never be a vegetarian. I like my meat too much.
*insert perverted joke here*
No, and as fruits are the last bastion of moral perfection, I wish for you to elaborate so that I can conclude FINALLY that we're necessarily morally imperfect, so we can finally just do whatever we want, rather than argue we ought to be eating certain ways =)Quote:
Originally Posted by Big DDid you see my thoughts about why eating plants and crops is inherently harmful to animals? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Pureghetto
Oh dear... seal meat is the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
Also, I have nothin against veggies...hell, people eat all kinds of weird stuff, so if they don't like meat, all the more for me.
Lol 'insert'Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
I like meat a lot. It is tasty. I have no problems with killing an animal for me to feed. I don't really feel bad about it even though I've seen the killing of an animal for food with my own eyes, so it's not just because i'm oblivious to the "dirty" part of eating meat.
Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashini
I'm almost hesitant to ask this, but how, exactly, does that logic follow? Because it's definitely not plain and simple.
I think it's plain and simple, just stated in an out-there fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaistlinWow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashini
I'm almost hesitant to ask this, but how, exactly, does that logic follow? Because it's definitely not plain and simple.
Basically, what they're saying is that respecting other being's pursuit of happiness is a step in the right direction for the human race. Also, they include other issues that affect the human race and put the blame upon Animal Agriculture.
And that's the gist, old boy. :holmes:
But then that would mean animals have the same rights as humans. Which clearly isn't the case.
Besides if we didn't domesticate animals in the first place then there wouldn't be a human civilization to complain about the domestication of animals as being wrong. At least a civilization to the extent we have it today, just imagine if they never had horses for travel, no oxen to help till fields, no meat to eat to get protein (back before we knew anything about how to substitute meat to get protein).
Then animals besides ourselves would've dominated over all other animals. :p Of course, whatever would've caused that to happen must've made those other animals pretty smart, too. Maybe they'd come up with animal rights for us. :tongue:
Which assumes that the animals we eat are capable of "pursuing" a feeling of happiness. That seems to be a more nonsensical direction for the human race than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentarou
I think that's basically it right there.Quote:
Also, they include other issues that affect the human race and put the blame upon Animal Agriculture.
Lol animal rights.
How can animals have rights? They don't talk.
Mute people have rights too, and those who can't communicate at all:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Araciel
My international human rights law professor put it this way: All rights give rise to responsibilities. If animals have rights, does that mean they have legal responsibilities too?
Animals talk, they just don't talk in a form we can understand nor can they communicate intelligently.
Though there is that gorilla that knows sign language which can bring up a whole topic on whether it truly understands and communicates with it. Funny how many derailing topics we can make from this simple thread.
That's an interesting argument. I've always understood rights to be something 'given' without any direct cost, but with lots of hidden ones. Something like luxuries were before we had terms like social responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big DMute people have rights too, and those who can't communicate at all:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Araciel
My international human rights law professor put it this way: All rights give rise to responsibilities. If animals have rights, does that mean they have legal responsibilities too?
PLANTS ARE NOT CONSCIOUS BEINGS!!! They cannot experience pain, suffering, or have feelings. They have no nervous systems. They do not choose friendships, play or have mates. They have fewer choices then the average bacterium. And even if we are to suppose that plants have 'feelings' then it would still be wiser to eat plants, since fewer would have to 'suffer death' if people ate solely plants then raised meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000XIsn't that kind of an oxymoron in a way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashini
You know I wonder if there's groups out there that are working on the ethical treatment of plants and various other forms of life we consider "Too below us" to care about and exploit. I mean there's so many people spouting nonsense about animals when there's a whole another 90% of a planet full of life we're ignoring for a small population with a face.
No it is not an oxymoron. Human beings were originally scavengers, so we ate anything we could find. We eventually progressed from scavengers to farmers, which introduced a number of new food groups. In our modern world, the continued use of animal products is actually holding us back rather then advancing, because the production of animal products consumes so many resources as to make it unsustainable. Also, animal production has created a legal way to continue the ancient practice of slavery through the trade of illegal immigrants who constitute a large number of slaughterhouse workers.
It was not the domestication of animals, which led to the progression of human civilization. Indeed, many stone age human tribes were capable of surgical techniques that the more 'advanced' humans of the middle ages were incapable of. It was the discovery of the domestication of high carbohydrate, high yield, high protein plants (wheat, barley, rice, soy, lentils, ect.), which catapulted human civilization at the end of the Ice Age. These first fields were actually dug by hand, and it was not for another few thousand years that people had domesticated cattle, which were not at first used for meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000X
But all of that history is besides the point, the fact remains that we are on a planet with not enough resources for all the human animals to enjoy animal foods. Humans therefore will have die off (about 2/3 of the populace) to eat well, with sustainable methods or simply live off a plant-based diet.
Also, 'rights' are merely commonly agreed upon rules of conduct to be followed by humans. Humans tragically, need a long list of rules to avoid senseless cruelty. Animals should be granted the 'rights' of any other sentient life form, to be allowed to live uninhibited by human development or greed. Humans scientifically do not need to eat meat to survive or dairy or eggs. Humans do not need 'pets.' Medically speaking the use of lab animals has slowed the progression of medical science, because it gives inaccurate data. Indeed the first antibiotics would have been used a good thirty years before the use of pennisillin was invented, because they tested the substance on guinea pigs, who are fatally allergic to mold.
[leeza]Please do not double post. Use the edit/delete button. ~ Leeza[/leeza]
Every single right, from fundamental human rights recognised internationally to the additional rights conferred or defined by nations, impose certain duties or obligations on the person bearing that right. Free speech? You've got a duty not to defame, or to publish illegal publications. Freedom of movement and association? You incur the duty to respect others' property rights, i.e. you can't stroll into a stranger's living room and claim it's your right to do so. And so on, for every right that exists. It only seems to be in America that there's this notion of 'freedom without responsibility'.Quote:
Originally Posted by PureghettoThat's an interesting argument. I've always understood rights to be something 'given' without any direct cost, but with lots of hidden ones. Something like luxuries were before we had terms like social responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big DMute people have rights too, and those who can't communicate at all:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Araciel
My international human rights law professor put it this was: All rights give rise to responsibilities. If animals have rights, does that mean they have legal responsibilities too?
Disclaimer: The following post is riddled with sarcasm. If you take offense easily then please leave now.
Now I'm far from an expert on this as biology isn't my expertise, but last I heard there was no concrete proof either way. There's an entire study of science that's working on figuring out if plants have these emotions or not. I would like to see your proof of why plants aren't conscious, who knows maybe in the next year they make a discovery that trees are really as intelligent as humans. Stating they have no nervous system based on animals makes them unable to feel the same things is a pretty blatant statement, especially since they are from an entire kingdom of species from animals and their entire body structures is vastly different.Quote:
PLANTS ARE NOT CONSCIOUS BEINGS!!! They cannot experience pain, suffering, or have feelings. They have no nervous systems.
Regardless plants are still alive. So why is it that one form of life should be regarded as better and kept alive while the other is allowed to be slaughtered?
Under that logic if the entire Amazon Forest (and for sake of this dilemma we'll say all the animal life was evacuated before hand) were set on fire to kill the plant life it would be perfectly fine because it's just emotionless plants by our definition of emotions, yet to set a gerbil on fire would be morally wrong because it has the physiology more similar to us. So where do you draw the line between where it's fine to kill one life for another.
A cow has enough meat to feed a good deal people. To equal that much food in plant life it would take dozens of plants harvested. Simple math here. :monster:Quote:
And even if we are to suppose that plants have 'feelings' then it would still be wiser to eat plants, since fewer would have to 'suffer death' if people ate solely plants then raised meat.
Care to back this one with some empirical data? Cause I honestly don't believe this.Quote:
In our modern world, the continued use of animal products is actually holding us back rather then advancing, because the production of animal products consumes so many resources as to make it unsustainable.
Raising animals is holding back civilization? Really now? It couldn't be something much simpler such as a flawed education system or a society that can still promote superstitious religions and actually work to hold back science or numerous other problems in the world. But it's gotta be a source of our food that's holding it all back....riiiight.
Legal? Last I checked slavery was illegal in pretty much every nation, namely the big ones where holding back civilization would be occurring.Quote:
Also, animal production has created a legal way to continue the ancient practice of slavery through the trade of illegal immigrants who constitute a large number of slaughterhouse workers.
But surely if we had no more slaughtering of animals that would solve the slavery issue, not like we have sex slaves or a majority of the slave population working fields and mines anyways. I mean the slavers surely aren't smart enough to just stick their slaves in another money operation if slaughter houses went out of business anyways right?
While your correct that working on harvesting plant life would help society grow by being able to stop chasing around herds of animals, you left out the fact they still didn't have substitutes for meat back then and would still need the protein that animals offered. Let alone the fact that progress would have been a lot slower if people didn't have horses to use for travel since all good vehicles required animal labor, it would have taken a LOT longer for people to travel and for ideas and goods to be exchanged. Not to mention there's only so far people can go on working on fields with human power alone before mechanical production, hence the simple fact that a few ox can till a field faster then humans.Quote:
It was not the domestication of animals, which led to the progression of human civilization. Indeed, many stone age human tribes were capable of surgical techniques that the more 'advanced' humans of the middle ages were incapable of. It was the discovery of the domestication of high carbohydrate, high yield, high protein plants (wheat, barley, rice, soy, lentils, ect.), which catapulted human civilization at the end of the Ice Age. These first fields were actually dug by hand, and it was not for another few thousand years that people had domesticated cattle, which were not at first used for meat.
Although you still make is sound like domestication is bad for the animals. It's not like people abused the animals, if they did then they wouldn't have very good workers if they beat or malnourished them. While I'm sure it did happen in some cases, the majority didn't. Better yet the animals were given safety, shelter, and more food then they would have gotten in the wild. I hardly see how that's a bad thing when all we ask of them is to pull around a few things. If not for us then all animals would sleep out in the rain and would be prone to predators attacking them.
Long post, but you just gave me so much to work with. Time for a rest while I let my brain get off overdrive.
This. And I avoid eating meat at restaurants when the people who work there can't tell me where the meat comes from. And I'm really picky about the meat I buy. If I can find out where it's from and that place pastures the animals and treats 'em well, I can spare a little extra cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Plum
I actually would freak over both. It kills me when people treat plants like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PureghettoI have an excellent example to show what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentarou
In my left hand I have a gerbil. In my right hand I have a potted plant.
If I set fire to the gerbil, what will be your reaction?
What if I set fire to the plant? What if I set fire to a tree? Rip a sapling off the ground? Cover a plant in darkness?
Why is it morally neutral to mistreat plants? Cognitive Dissonance? I think so.
Well, this is true and false. The current livestock industry thrives on grain which must be grown which does mean more land is used to raise livestock than to raise crops. Agriculture itself is pretty horrible too, though. Another HUGE reason for this, though, is the fact that not only do people eat those products, but we also waste food like nobody's business. See all the crap restaurants throw away that ends up in a landfill - organic matter that doesn't do any good to anyone. Just rots.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILFCompletely false. The amount of land required to raise animals is far, fair higher than the amount of land required to grow crops for Humans. Crop farming is far more space-efficient than husbandry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Pasturing animals, though, and using only what you need, takes up less land than industrial agriculture. Of course, the same rules about waste DO apply to agricultural products too.
This is one of my pet issues, waste of food I mean. No reason for people to waste food if they think before they eat.
Slightly off topic, but children don't have legal responsibilities (aside from not committing violent crimes, I suppose.) But children have rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big DMute people have rights too, and those who can't communicate at all:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Araciel
My international human rights law professor put it this way: All rights give rise to responsibilities. If animals have rights, does that mean they have legal responsibilities too?
Kids don't have the right to go wherever, do whatever, and say whatever they like - so their rights are subject to the same responsibilities as adults' rights. There are simply fewer judicial measures to penalise them for non-compliance... Of course, I'm dealing with the legal concepts of rights and responsibilities here, which might be rather different from the common understanding of those ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
I don't have anything against vegetarians, I have something against pricks, and there's a correlation there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AracielOh dear... seal meat is the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
Also, I have nothin against veggies...hell, people eat all kinds of weird stuff, so if they don't like meat, all the more for me.
Yes, I understand sarcasm quite well, and I have a decent sense of humor. The topic of AR, vegetarianism/veganism, ect. are very emotional topics on all sides, because it calls into question centuries old human-centric view points.
Plant Neurology is a very new science. Depending on how conservative the biologist is, will depend upon the answer. I do not agree with senseless burning of forests or the clearing of so much land to feed livestock or to create biofuels. I find the degradation or destruction of any living thing reprehensible.
As someone mentioned above most meat (especially in North America) comes from factory farms, where cows, chickens and pigs are fed on corn/soy diets. The feeding and watering of these animals takes more resources then if the humans ate the product directly. Pasturing helps, but currently with the high human populace on the planet it is not sustainable or affordable. I have yet to read a reasonable solution to this problem on either side.
I did not imply the ending of all animal industries would solve all the problems of humanity. Humans after all are the problem. We are animals who no longer fit within the environment we evolved from. We are too successful, and thus we have overpopulated and wreak havoc through out the world. I would like to believe humans will learn to self-regulate better and clean up their act. However, I am not much of an optimist.
The problem with the domestication of animals is that we have taken away many of their basic instincts that allow them to survive on their own. We cannot truly communicate our intentions to one another, so the relationship will always be one of animal=asset and humans=master. I absolutely detest this relationship, and with our current technology we no longer need animals for the purpose of transportation or food. Companion animals are nice, but they end up being commodities. Any creature that can feel and act of its own will is not a 'commodity' in my book.
I am not going to 'make' anyone be a vegan or veggie or omni or cani. Hell, I live with an omnivore. I am woman enough to admit that veganism does not have the answers to all the problems in the world or to animal rights.
Source? And as suspected, you don't take into account that we already have a huge food surplus in the more developed countries. If we add more resources, those aren't going to automatically go to the ones who need them; it's more of a problem with distribution than production.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashini
Um, so? Ok, you're personally against it, but how can you justify it being evil, especially if the animals themselves aren't capable of caring one way or another? You seem to have this idea of what you feel is objectively better for animals, which is nonsense.Quote:
The problem with the domestication of animals is that we have taken away many of their basic instincts that allow them to survive on their own. We cannot truly communicate our intentions to one another, so the relationship will always be one of animal=asset and humans=master. I absolutely detest this relationship, and with our current technology we no longer need animals for the purpose of transportation or food. Companion animals are nice, but they end up being commodities. Any creature that can feel and act of its own will is not a 'commodity' in my book.
Why?Quote:
Also, 'rights' are merely commonly agreed upon rules of conduct to be followed by humans. Humans tragically, need a long list of rules to avoid senseless cruelty. Animals should be granted the 'rights' of any other sentient life form, to be allowed to live uninhibited by human development or greed.
This is really laughable.Quote:
Medically speaking the use of lab animals has slowed the progression of medical science, because it gives inaccurate data.
plants do not have emotions or feelings. If they did it would make no sense evolutionarily. nor is there evidence.
Could you please fill in that gap. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
Plants certainly don't feel pain, nor can they think. However, plants do react to damage - they have various systemic responses to harm, including chemical processes and whatnot. There are some that react by releasing unpleasant-tasting toxins into their leaves, and then 'communicate' a warning to their neighbours with airborne chemical signals. They react to damage, and then try to protect themselves - in animals, those responses would be considered 'suffering' and 'self-preservation'.
Not sure where I'm going with this. I'm definitely not arguing for 'plant rights' or 'tree sentience' or anything. I guess I'm just responding to the notion that 'plants don't feel anything so we can do what we want to them without moral compunctions'. They sure don't 'suffer' in a way we can relate to, but arguably they do experience a kind of suffering.
Perhaps the technology is near that'll allow us to synthesise a nutritionally perfect food, using no animal or plant products but providing a completely balanced diet. That'd be cool, and depending on the production costs and energy demands, it could be a great move in environmental terms too. But unless or until such a food is developed, the continued harvesting of animals and plants remains a necessity.
In order to feel pain, don't you have to have a brain? That's where your pain receptors are. So I think that excludes plants.
Yeah, but I think what Big D's trying to say is that plants suffer in a way we can't comprehend.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
If you stopped watering a plant, or if you leave a plant in darkness, do you not comprehend that you are causing the plant a metaphorical type of discomfort? If you uprooted a plant or burned down a tree, are they amoral acts?
You don't even need to understand how a tree functions to answer those questions.
And where would that energy come from? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Im guessing that somewhere in the process things would be burned, or made by burning stuff. you could use nuclear energy of course, but i doubt if that would be more benificial to the enviroment.
Ok, for a nervous system to be developed one must use quite a few resources. Since plants do not react much and certainly do not think, their nervous systems are far less under developed. Plants which have highly developed nervous systems would be wasting resources and so would be less likely to survive. Therefore plants having extremely basic nervous systems is naturally selected for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harle-QuinCould you please fill in that gap. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
There's a crucial difference here between the reactions of plants and the reactions of animals. The reactions of plants, as far as I know, are purely involuntary. Whereas the reactions of animals and humans are a combination of voluntary and involuntary. Plants cannot make any conscious decisions. They just react in a certain way due to their genes. From an evolutionary point of view, a plant being able to feel pain would not benefit it because pain is only necessary to guide organsisms that are capable of voluntary actions. Let me try and explain with a diagram.Quote:
Plants certainly don't feel pain, nor can they think. However, plants do react to damage - they have various systemic responses to harm, including chemical processes and whatnot. There are some that react by releasing unpleasant-tasting toxins into their leaves, and then 'communicate' a warning to their neighbours with airborne chemical signals. They react to damage, and then try to protect themselves - in animals, those responses would be considered 'suffering' and 'self-preservation'.
Human
Touches fire-----> automatically moves finger (involuntary) ----> feels pain so that human will not touch fire again (ie, will not commit the same voluntary actions)
Notice how the finger was moved away before the human felt any pain. It was not necessary for the human to feel pain for the finger to move.
If the plant were to face a similar scenario, some species would move away in reaction. But for them to react they do not have to feel anything. It is not necessary and the feeling of pain in no way benefits them because all their reactions are automatic and involuntary.
So while it is possible that plants do feel pain, evolutionarily I can see little reason to believe this is the case.
I dont know what you mean. You could argue that you are causing sperm metaphorical discomfort when you kill it, but that doesnt change the fact that it doesnt feel anything.Quote:
If you stopped watering a plant, or if you leave a plant in darkness, do you not comprehend that you are causing the plant a metaphorical type of discomfort? If you uprooted a plant or burned down a tree, are they amoral acts?
You don't even need to understand how a tree functions to answer those questions.
If you uproot a plant, the plant wouldnt know anything because it never knew anything. All its 'knowledge' was in grained in its own DNA. Every action it takes is coded for in those nucleotide pairs. Only the brain or something like that allows for voluntary action outside the realms of DNA.
EDIT: Seems that I may be wrong. I did a bit of research and apparently lots of chemicals are released from the plants when they are cut and stuff. Whether this cause pain is not really clear but perhaps I underestimated our green friends. It also seems to be true that plants even have a nervous system of sorts although a very basic one. Why on earth they need one, I dont know...
EDITGA: Absurdity of Plant Pain
Take a look at that. That agrees with my logic.
In conclusion, there is no definite answer atm insofar as I know.
So basically, according to the people who believe plants feel pain, and according to vegetarians.....what the hell are we supposed to eat?!
I don't think anyone's saying we shouldn't eat plants; what they're saying is that it's wrong to claim that "eating animals is totally evil, but eating plants is totally fine!" the way numerous vegetarians and vegans do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef Gordon Ramsey
Some simple facts are as follows:
Almost everyone on Earth eats meat.
Almost all of those people would say meat is the most enjoyable part of their diet.
North America is a bloated, creepy place that gets a bad rep for industrial farming of plants AND animals...I'm sure other places are, but I don't live in them.
Hippies like to cry out about animal rights and pain and how vegetarian life is so much healthier/as healthy as an omnivorous life.
Actually, keeping this thread in general chat seems to have kept it quite civil and I'm impressed/in like with all of you right now.
I'm more amazed that this hasn't turned into a spam fest already in GC. :monster:Quote:
Originally Posted by Araciel
Thats only because (no offense intended) Westerners have the most boring methods of preparing food ever. The Western vegetable dishes are so tasteless, its not even funny. They dont even do that much better with meat when they use it for crap like burgers.*Quote:
Almost all of those people would say meat is the most enjoyable part of their diet.
*Im gonna get a lot of hate for saying that. :p
Anyway, even if eating plants is wrong, eating animals is far worse in comparison. Not only do the animals eat those plants to grow, we then kill those animals causing even more pain. So eating plants could be seens as the lesser of two evils. Also remember though that fruits are intended by the plants to be eaten. And the plants dont always die.
Why is meat, when cooked properly, so tasty? God sure is sadistic.
Anyway, Quorn is extremely tasty as well when cooked right. And its healthier. And nothing feels pain (except the bacteria!)
Rather than divine sadism, it's got more to do with evolutionary advantage. We're attracted to three major categories of taste: sugar, salt, and fat. Essential for survival, especially when you're a hunter-gatherer living in a harsh pre-civilisation wilderness. Meat can provide massive amounts of many of the chemicals that are essential to living and functioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
Even in recorded history, meat consumption is by no means universal. Medieval Europe, for instance, was nearly unique in that its peasant classes regularly ate meat, whereas their Chinese counterparts were wholly vegetarian.
I wasnt really being serious there, but good post.Quote:
^Rather than divine sadism, it's got more to do with evolutionary advantage. We're attracted to three major categories of taste: sugar, salt, and fat. Essential for survival, especially when you're a hunter-gatherer living in a harsh pre-civilisation wilderness. Meat can provide massive amounts of many of the chemicals that are essential to living and functioning.
Btw, meat is high in protein and sometimes fat right? Arent we attracted to protein as well? Anyway, what we are attracted to aint always healthy *stares at sweeties*
I remember hearing that peasants generally tend to eat more vegetables than meat because they need to get the most food out of their plot of land. And by shortening the food chain they were able to eat more food.Quote:
Even in recorded history, meat consumption is by no means universal. Medieval Europe, for instance, was nearly unique in that its peasant classes regularly ate meat, whereas their Chinese counterparts were wholly vegetarian.
I think vegetarianism is a really great idea. If the world was mostly vegetarian then I'd turn to it myself, but it's not, there are only a small minority of vegetarians. Really, does one person not eating meat - when thousands of other meat-eaters eat it every day - really make much of a difference? I really don't think it does. Like I said before, if most of the world were vegetarian then I'd turn to it myself, as I don't really like the way the meat is prepared, I just prefer not to think about it. I don't feel that I need to eat meat, I just choose to as it's really yummy.
I did all about vegetarians in my Food technology GCSE coursework; It got me good marks as I catered my whole product towards a special diet, so ty Vegetarians.
The world is made up by individuals, so if everyone was living by your philosophy, Zeldy, there woud be no vegetarians at all.
It isn't only about that one individual being able to do something for the animals, it's about living according to your own values, convictions and conscious. In addition, there is the influence you can make on other people by taking such a stand.
There are quite a few vegetarians in the world, actually, and if you put together how many animals they would've eaten had they been meat eaters, you will see that they do make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
Of course, meat has always been a frivolous rich man's food.
Certainly, they ate more veges than meat. If your diet contains more meat than plants, you're in real trouble. 'Regular' meat consumption isn't the same as 'large-scale' meat consumption; a European peasant family in a moderate-sized medieval village might slaughter a handful of animals each year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner