Are meat eaters allowed to judge another persons ethics?

[swilow]

Its another debate entirely, but capitalism would seem to compel meat producers to do it as intensively as possible in as high a volume as possible with the least overheads and lowest price because either someone else is so you need to compete, or nobody else is in which case you need to move in and dominate that market. I don't have any alternative to that system however. But I don't believe it is really a natural state for humanity, as all evidence points to us being hunter/gatherer's for most of our history thus far, a lifestyle in which innumerable personal possessions are more a hindrance than anything.

Either way, I think humans have backed ourselves and everyone else into a corner and our horrific farming practises are certainly one huge reason for this.

 

[Cosmic Trigger]

In the end we will pay for all of this big time IMO. Unrestrained Capitalism has huge downsides for humanity. Especially psychologically but for sure also environmentally. It is the cause of great amounts of human and animal suffering so that a few can play with lots of toys.

 

[spacejunk]

I think the meat, dairy and egg industries are pretty good examples of what is wrong with capitalism.

 

[JGrimez]

We should avoid destroying their habitat too.

Does that include via agriculture?

I'd prefer to see an animal die of old age than either of the two choices you present.

Same, I'd prefer that a vegan diet was healthier and that plants didn't too feel discomfort when harvested (they do)

But I do not believe that it is possible for farm animals to be treated humanely under our greedy system, so I cannot say I support the idea. I don't think its possible.

Why isn't it possible? There's no such thing as an ethical farm where workers have respect for animals?

If all 7 billion humans wanted to eat humanely raised meat, we'd have to live on the Moon. Its not going to happen, so I tend to disregard it.

Agriculture destroys topsoil and entire habitats. Pasture-raised animals graze and fertilize the land they roam leaving it better off. Pretty obvious what is more sustainable.

 

[Xorkoth]

Do some research man. Raising cows for beef uses either huge amounts of land, or huge amounts of corn (if not grass-fed). Also huge amounts of water. These resources would be much more efficiently used in feeding people directly and not feeding cows that then feed people.

Agriculture doesn't have to destroy topsoil, it just does because of shitty practices, not rotating crops, plowing between every season, etc.

 

[belligerent drunk]

For example, I'd prefer to see an animal die of old age than either of the two choices you present.

Who wouldn't, but how often does it actually happen in the wilderness? A lot of people seem to forget how brutal, stressful, and unforgiving life in the wild is - we haven't been trying to get away from it with our cities and technology for no reason. Remove everything on your person including clothes and spend a month in the wilderness - even with your high intellect and knowledge, it won't be much fun.

It seems to me that in this sort of discussion, most imagine an animal in the wild as living the dream, roaming their beloved wherever, grazing on delicious grass, rainbow in the background. When in reality they spend most of their waking time doing their best to avoid getting eaten (while still alive for at least a part of it) by a predator or dying due to one of numerous causes. Most animals live their lives of stress only for it to end by becoming another animal's meal for the day, after all; and it's never as painless as humans do it over at the meat factories.

Just something to consider.

Agriculture destroys topsoil and entire habitats. Pasture-raised animals graze and fertilize the land they roam leaving it better off. Pretty obvious what is more sustainable.

Umm, no. Animal meat is at least an order of magnitude less efficient than plant material per unit of mass/nutritional value etc. Herbivores eat plant matter, but the weight their body gains is only a small percentage of what they consume in total, cause metabolism. Which is why large-scale meat industry is more destructive - you actually need extremely large amounts of feed, and that needs land to grow on. Growing plant matter for the meat industry is causing a lot of environmental problems such as deforestation etc. That 100 g piece of steak on your or my plate needs tens upon tens of kg of plant matter beforehand.

 

[undiminished689]

You guys should go to Venezuela and totally live in a socialist utopia. Bread lines, gulags, gas chambers, killing of millions of homosexuals. I couldn?t think of more anti human concept than socialism.

Look at Europe after socialism, whites becoming minorities in their own countries included with sharia law and Muslim rape gangs with a failing ballon economy with thought police and no guns. Such a great concept. I know this is a meat thread but as pointed out meat is as carcinogenic as cigs, but nothing is more carcinogenic than socialism. I?m gonna throw up now lol

 

[spacejunk]

Uh what?

I know this thread is ridiculous, but it has nothing to do with socialism - and i have no idea why you bring it up.

I support a lot of socialist ideas like universal healthcare, public ownership of certain industries and a focus on social welfare over corporate profits - but i generally don't describe myself as a socialist - just as i generally don't call myself a vegan.

This talk of "whites becoming minorities in their own countries" is just baseless hyperbole that has nothing to do with this thread or this topic, so i do not understand why you keep brining it up.
Likewise, the "muslim rape gangs" motif is just religious bigotry, which is irrelevant and has no place here (please have a look at the Bluelight User Agreement if you are not aware of our guidelines. There is a clear rule prohibiting "content that victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason" - so you might want to be wary of that - especially in this particular subforum)


But speaking of poison - and the fact that youd rant includes about a bunch of unrelated topics, it sounds like you've been ideologically poisoned by right wing (alt right or whatever they call themselves) propagandists. There are various online crackpots that push this "white genocide" rhetoric, and they all seem to be hostile to the same ideas - racial equality, sexual equality, religious freedom.
There is a massive polarisation of politics, culture and ideology at the moment, and a lot of "debate" online is just empty tribalism.
Is that what's prompting you to rail against "socialism"?

I ask, because what you're saying makes no sense - "socialism" is not "carcinogenic".

You may not agree with socialist ideology - but looking at your criticisms, i'm not too sure you have a very good understanding of the thing you're condemning.

There is no single definition of socialism - it's a term used to describe a huge range of political theories and ideologies, and it has taken many forms throughout history.
What does "europe after socialism" mean? I suspect it's as meaningless as comments about "muslim rape gangs" - none of which has anything to do with the ethics of human meat consumption.

Socialism pre-dates Marx and - as i understand it, in extremely general terms - prioritises social welfare outcomes and human needs over other forms of social and economic development which result in exploitation of workers and massive inequities of wealth. The things you've brought up (such as gas chambers and gulags) have nothing to do with either socialism or the ethics of food production/consumption - but i can see you're trying to lump nazism in with socialism, which is ridiculous.

Again though, i don't see the link to this thread - or, indeed this subforum.
There is some crossover between philosophy and spirituality and politics - but i don't understand what relevance socialism has to this discussion.

 

[undiminished689]

It?s not in violation because there are Muslim rape gangs in European countries that are terrorizing the native born.

Facts aren?t racist bruh.

And everything I described occurred when socialism was implemented its obvious you don?t know what happens to countries when they implement socialism. U Don?t understand universal healthcare because u never served I?m reading about another vet dying at a VA hospital waiting for service. The universal healthcare costs other countries 50-80% of their income just to have government controlled and wasted resources. Ur government is capable of electing Donald Trump yet you want more of it controlling ur life and willingly giving ur money to it? No you just don?t understand basic policies,

 

[spacejunk]

It?s not in violation because there are Muslim rape gangs in European countries that are terrorizing the native born.

Facts aren?t racist bruh.

Racism is racism. That's a fact. So please stop with that rubbish.

And everything I described occurred when socialism was implemented its obvious you don?t know what happens to countries when they implement socialism. U Don?t understand universal healthcare because u never served I?m reading about another vet dying at a VA hospital waiting for service. The universal healthcare costs other countries 50-80% of their income just to have government controlled and wasted resources. Ur government is capable of electing Donald Trump yet you want more of it controlling ur life and willingly giving ur money to it? No you just don?t understand basic policies,

What on earth are you talking about?
I don't live in the USA.
I live in a country with universal health care. I don't spend 50-80% of my income on "government controlled and wasted resources"

I suggest doing some research before spouting this sort of stuff, because being patronising doesn't work when your posts are incoherent and completely inaccurate.

 

[undiminished689]

No that?s not racist. And please tell us all what u pay in taxes each year then

 

[swilow]

No that?s not racist. And please tell us all what u pay in taxes each year then

Can you talk about this boring and irrelevant nonsense in another thread please?

 

[swilow]

Does that include via agriculture?

Yeah, it does.

Of course, you'll repeat the argument that vegans are destroying habitat via agriculture. This is true.

No-one is saying that veganism or vegetarianism are perfectly moral diets. There are negatives associated with them. There is much more negatives associated with animal farming.

Same, I'd prefer that a vegan diet was healthier and that plants didn't too feel discomfort when harvested (they do)

Show me a reputable study that proves this. I have read similar claims, but reacting to the environment and to various stimulii shouldn't be taken as discomfort or pain. Plants do not have the nervous system for this. You are anthropomorphising animals. Its hippie nonsense.

Why isn't it possible? There's no such thing as an ethical farm where workers have respect for animals?

Its possible if we changed the fundamental nature of our economic system and reduced the human population by about 80%.

I'm still not going to eat meat. You are not going to convince me that I am unethical, or field any argument that will change my stance. I have thought this through pretty thoroughly over the last 20 years. You clearly find this choice insulting because you feel there is implicit judgment of your own choices. For me, there literally is judgement. On that, you also won't change my mind.

Agriculture destroys topsoil and entire habitats. Pasture-raised animals graze and fertilize the land they roam leaving it better off. Pretty obvious what is more sustainable.

Do you really think that animal farming is more sustainable? There is not enough land to provide meat from pasture-fed animals at the volume that we currently demand it. It is not sustainable in any sense.

Its really evident that you don't know what you are talking about here. It would probably be a good idea for you to do some more research before continuing.

It seems to me that in this sort of discussion, most imagine an animal in the wild as living the dream, roaming their beloved wherever, grazing on delicious grass, rainbow in the background. When in reality they spend most of their waking time doing their best to avoid getting eaten (while still alive for at least a part of it) by a predator or dying due to one of numerous causes. Most animals live their lives of stress only for it to end by becoming another animal's meal for the day, after all; and it's never as painless as humans do it over at the meat factories.

Has anyone really claimed that wild animals are 'living the dream'? I'm certainly not, so I think its you who are imagining things here. Its just another version of the argument which tries to debase vegetarian diets by claiming the proponent is out of touch, or making assumptions about the idyllic nature of the environment.

The stressors that a wild animal faces are stressors that they have had millions of years of evolution to help deal with; they can fight back against their attackers, they can flee- in the wild, they can escape. As an animal myself, I am well aware of how valuable an escape is. The stress of a factory farm is alien to any animal, and involves things such as restricted movement, not being allowed to perform basic automatic behaviours such as nesting, controlled and 'unnatural' diets, not being allowed to rear their own young, having social hierarchies dismantled, living whilst being covered in their own shit, etc. The stress of having natural behaviours supressed for the entire duration of life is a stress that wild animals do not experience. And we tacitly understand that such supression is unpleasant which is why we use it as punishment for human criminals.

As to the painless death of the factory farm- you may need to really acquaint yourself with how a lot of these animals die. Its not painless, it is terrifying and it comes at the tail end of a sterile and unnatural life. Its the life part that bothers me. Coupled with the degradation of the environment that factory farming causes (and high volume agriculture) and you have the very reasons why I think eating meat is unethical and why I'm not going to take part in it. Its unfortunate that the environment that meat eaters are destroying is my environment too.

 

[spacejunk]

^ top post.

There is an increasing awareness of the environmental harms and ethical concerns of eating factory farmed animal products.
Which is why "free range" eggs are a thing, and of course why veganism is becoming ever more popular.

The unstoppable rise of veganism: how a fringe movement went mainstream

Hooray for market forces, eh?

Believe it or not, i adopted a vegan diet largely because i think vegan food is better than non-vegan food.
Maybe some of us ethical bastards are just selfish hedonists?

 

[sonoio]

I'm still not going to eat meat. You are not going to convince me that I am unethical, or field any argument that will change my stance.

Right !
As a human being you are an omnivore and that's kind of a "natural" fact.
All these discussions about vegetarian, vegan ecc are manmade like ethics are too.
Some even state that it's a sin to eat meat. But I ask who is in a position to tell another what's a sin and what is "allowed" ?
Cheers

 

[spacejunk]

We can be omnivores, certainly - but we also have the unique luxury of choosing to be herbavores, which i think is pretty cool

But to answer your question, nobody is in a position to moralise about such things.

I love it when people quit eating meat or go vegan or whatever, but i certainly don't judge people for what they do or don't eat.

It would be nice if people would extend the same courtesy to vegans, but i certainly don't lose any sleep over people criticising me for eating a plant based diet.

 

[sonoio]

... but i certainly don't judge people for what they do or don't eat.

It would be nice if people would extend the same courtesy to vegans, but i certainly don't lose any sleep over people criticising me for eating a plant based diet.

Great, thumbs up !
The main problem is in my opinion that many vegetarians/vegans are evangelising their way to feed.
If one says "I'm vegetarian" the reaction is "interesting" or "not my way, I like meat" ecc. If one states "Anyone who eats meat is a criminal" it comes to another kind of dicussion ...
Sadly between vegetarians/vegans are too many of militant representatives.
Cheers

 

[spacejunk]

I hear people say this quite often, but i've never really known any of these 'militant representatives'.

I probably know hundreds of people that don't eat meat (no exaggeration) and i honestly don't know anyone that behaves that way towards meat eaters.
Perhaps people act that way if they're insecure about it, or naive?
Where i live, nobody gives veganism or vegetarianism a second thought, because it's common and'normal' here.

Maybe the people who go on the offensive about their self-righteous consumption choices are feeling attacked themselves?
This goes for meat eaters people that are vegatarian or vegan.
I'm not sticking up for people who do perpetuate stereotypes of vegans being tedious evangelising jerks - but vegans are uncommon in some places, and people are often really rude and patronising to vegans.

I don't doubt that there plenty of obnoxious vegans or vegetarians who are hung up on converting everyone, or preaching - but i'd be surprised if anyone in this thread knows as many vego people as i do, and i have never known any that the unflattering stereotypes.

 

[Xorkoth]

Well, the guy who started this thread was one of the militant representatives, I would say. In America we have a group called PETA (maybe you have it elsewhere too) who sometimes cross the line into domestic terrorism and have a tendency to be very extremist and look down on anyone who would dare use animals in any way, for food, or eggs, or whatever. There was a court case I read about recently where this photographer was trying to get intimate/natural photos of orangutans (I think or else chimps or another ape) for I think National geographic. They would freeze up and not act natural when they knew someone was taking their picture. He eventually rigged up a thing where the orangutans would press a button to take their own photo, which they found very amusing, and he got some amazing photos.

Well, the guy published the photos, and PETA slapped him with a lawsuit trying to say he was stealing the intellectual property rights of the orangutan, who deserved to see the profit made from the photos and retain intellectual rights. They didn't win the case and it was widely considered to be completely ridiculous (what is an orangutan going to do with money? Who is this hurting?) Ironically the photographer's views aligned largely with PETA's... he was doing the photos to try to raise awareness of the inherent personalities of the animals. He worked in his career towards animal rights. But PETA people can be really crazy, they attacked him for furthering the very cause they claim to support. I know that story had nothing to do with eating meat but I think it's related and illustrates why (or part of the reason why) there is a bigger sentiment in the US that vegans are militant.

Also, please keep this discussion on topic. Socialism/politics/muslims/etc have nothing to do with this topic, but we do have a whole forum for that kind of thing.

 

[undiminished689]

PETA never appealed to me when I was vegan. Seems like statist liberal non sense to me