Is it okay for vegans to eat oysters?

[Kenickie]

if you aren't vegan, i don't think it matters either way what you eat.

 

[TheDeceased]

So non-vegans should eat dogs and cats or monkeys?
What about people? Highly evolved alien species?
Rocks? Nails?
Petrified foreskin?

 

[Changed]

We can speculate all we want about what animals and plants feel or don't feel. In the end, we aren't plants and we aren't oysters or chickens. Eat what you want, call yourself whatever you want, and planet earth continues to spin around and around.

 

[TheDeceased]

So if I feel like eating a baby or a kitten, I should just eat one?

 

[Changed]

So if I feel like eating a baby or a kitten, I should just eat one?

Not a child, but anything less than a human, sure.

Eat your own shit and run screaming through the streets praising its nutritional content.

 

[TheDeceased]

I'd rather not eat highly intelligent animals like dolphins and cats personally.

If you have no problem with eating puppies, and you don't give a shit about the welfare of any creature that doesn't belong to your own species, then that's up to you.

If someone creates a post about whether or not it's okay to stand on mice for entertainment purposes, you could just as easily say: "Yeah fuck it, stand on those little cunts."

Not a child, but anything less than a human, sure.

What about a dead baby?

Or a terminally ill baby?

Or a young human fetus that is going to be aborted?

Or an aborted fetus?

 

[delta_9]

^You'd have to take it up with both the parents of said child, and local law agencies. Not Bluelight.
You're being very silly.

 

[TheDeceased]

Um, I'm not being silly. I was being sarcastic. They weren't serious questions. I was making a point. If it doesn't matter what you eat as long as it isn't a live human, then surely people should be eating kittens and dolphins and dead babies.

Changed's attitude isn't particularly progressive and it exhibits no concern whatsoever for the welfare of the planet or the animal kingdom.

"The world keeps spinning," yes. But if you can eat an animal that won't suffer or eat an animal that will suffer, then why eat the former? Simply because you don't give a shit if something that you can't directly relate to is suffering?

Cause that's pretty selfish, isn't it?

 

[Changed]

I'd rather not eat highly intelligent animals like dolphins and cats personally.

If you have no problem with eating puppies, and you don't give a shit about the welfare of any creature that doesn't belong to your own species, then that's up to you.

If someone creates a post about whether or not it's okay to stand on mice for entertainment purposes, you could just as easily say: "Yeah fuck it, stand on those little cunts."

What about a dead baby?

Or a terminally ill baby?

Or a young human fetus that is going to be aborted?

Or an aborted fetus?

People in Korea eat dogs aplenty. I'm sure a lot of people around the world eat cats too. If a human being has to eat an animal to survive, I'm all for it.

I don't advocate the consumption of any human beings (unless you're stranded in the Andes and have to draw-straws...)

I would not advocate for standing on mice, as this provides little to no nutritional content for the stander. Eating something of another species and of lesser-intelligence, however, is a-okay with me.

 

[slimvictor]

Um, oysters are really good for you... Why should they be avoided?

(Oysters are better for you than honey as far as I know.)



:D

Because oysters are filters, they filter out the toxins in the water in which they live.
Therefore, they tend to contain large amounts of toxins.

Honey, on the other hand, has anti-bacterial, anti-microbial, and anti-fungal properties, to name just a few.

 

[TheDeceased]

So you'd honestly have no problem eating dolphins, dogs, monkeys or cats?

Re: the consumption of a pre-conscious (prior to 16 weeks a fetus doesn't have a functional brain) fetus that is going to be aborted anyway - wouldn't it be better to eat that then to deprive another more intelligent creature (everything is more intelligent than an undeveloped fetus), say a dolphin, of life?

Many animal species eat miscarried fetuses and afterbirth, etc.

 

[Changed]

So you'd honestly have no problem eating dolphins, dogs, monkeys or cats?

Re: the consumption of a pre-conscious (prior to 16 weeks a fetus doesn't have a functional brain) fetus that is going to be aborted anyway - wouldn't it be better to eat that then to deprive another more intelligent creature (everything is more intelligent than an undeveloped fetus), say a dolphin, of life?

Many animal species eat miscarried fetuses and afterbirth, etc.

I never said anything about me eating these things; I maintain a 90% raw vegan diet. But, I'll advocate for somebody else's right to eat whatever animal they want--short of human beings in any form, living or dead, fetus or functioning.

If you feel so strongly about the subject of dolphins or dogs and cats being eaten, why not head over to Japan to protest the dolphin hunting, then stop over at Korea to protest domestic animal consumption?

 

[TheDeceased]

Because oysters are filters, they filter out the toxins in the water in which they live.
Therefore, they tend to contain large amounts of toxins.

I'm not sure where you live, but that's not an issue here due to safety regulations. I eat raw seafood almost every day. (So do Japanese people, who have by a long stretch the highest life expectancy of any country in the world.) Marine toxins are potentially present in many marine species, including fish. It is not just oysters/ filter feeders. In fact Caribbean Barracuda is considered the worst of all seafood for potential marine toxins.

I have never had food poisoning from good quality seafood. If I bought discount oysters at a market I would be taking that risk, whereas oysters from farms that have passed health and safety regulations are no more likely to be contaminated than chicken from my experience. Either that or due to the massive amount of raw seafood I have eaten, I am immune to the toxins.

 

[TheDeceased]

If you feel so strongly about the subject of dolphins or dogs and cats being eaten, why not head over to Japan to protest the dolphin hunting, then stop over at Korea to protest domestic animal consumption?

Yeah I guess everyone who makes a thread about something is clearly ready to spend ten thousand dollars travelling the world.

But, I'll advocate for somebody else's right to eat whatever animal they want--short of human beings in any form, living or dead, fetus or functioning.

I never said anybody shouldn't eat something, did I? I'm not saying people shouldn't eat meat. The question was: if the purpose of veganism is to reduce the suffering of animals, then shouldn't it only apply to animals capable of suffering?

I don't see how this question is unclear/invalid.

 

[L2R]

i've touched upon the subject of personhood at uni and found it interesting that dolphins and other intelligent non-human species can be consider more a "person" than a fetus, a severely handicapped adult or even a very young infant.

in the context of this discussion, what consitutes a harm can be contestable. if what you say, the deceased, is true in that one only really needs to consider an organism which can experientially feel pain, then you are aligning alongside the argument which asserts that a healthy adult who sustains a brain injury resulting in them being in a permanent child-like state, unable to look after themselves, but contented with basic comforts, is not harmed by the event since they are experientially in what could be argued as a better state to be in. the problem with this argument is that it is only considering a harm in a subjective context. objectively, the event is certainly a harm in all the independant adult life the person was denied, even though they are not aware of it.

so, the line one draws somewhere from mineral to plant to animal is essentially arbitrary. there are no actual objective distinctions that i have come across to determine the morality of eating certain things and perhaps not others.

btw: i have eaten dog, but i didn't know what it was until after.

 

[TheDeceased]

Thanks for contributing to the subject rather than dismissing the topic at hand.

You raise an interesting point about disabled people, though in nature animals tend to eat miscarried fetuses (very common) rather than cannibalism/eating adult members of their own species (extremely uncommon).

objectively, the event is certainly a harm in all the independant adult life the person was denied, even though they are not aware of it.

I worked with people with acquired brain injuries for years and although I do see your point I think there is a massive distinction between the consumption of a person with limited awareness (I have never encountered someone with an ABI who does not have some idea of who and where they are) and an oyster.

When you deprive a person of life, it affects their family and friends and they are deprived of the pleasures that they would otherwise experience in life.

Whereas oysters don't experience pleasures, so although you are denying them the latter part of their adult life what does that really mean?

Ignoring the term "animal", isn't eating an oyster closer to eating a cabbage, then it is eating a rabbit?

i have eaten dog, but i didn't know what it was until after

What was your reaction when you found out?

And if you ate a kitten or a great ape, and then found out later, would you have the same reaction?

 

[L2R]

I worked with people with acquired brain injuries for years and although I do see your point I think there is a massive distinction between the consumption of a person with limited awareness (I have never encountered someone with an ABI who does not have some idea of who and where they are) and an oyster.

When you deprive a person of life, it affects their family and friends and they are deprived of the pleasures that they would otherwise experience in life.

Whereas oysters don't experience pleasures, so although you are denying them the latter part of their adult life what does that really mean?

The analogy lies in the experiential factor you are including in your conclusion. The very point that rests on the organism experiencing or appreciating the horrors of death should not be the determining factor imo.

Ignoring the term "animal", isn't eating an oyster closer to eating a cabbage, then it is eating a rabbit?

I can see how you could say this, but I eat plant and animal equally. Ethically, i feel that it is the same to eat either.

The only moral argument that I agree with in terms of harvesting one's food is the manner with which the lives of those plants or animals are cultivated. Caged versus free range chickens for instance. I still do not elect to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle because i don't think that that would make a difference. There are better ways to ensure animal cruelties are kept to a minimum, such as tight regulations on the food industry.

What was your reaction when you found out?

Initially i was shocked. I didn't get upset cuz i was eating with my wife and father in law, and so on good behaviour. To be honest, it had never actually bothered me. I really see no point in allowing it to.

And if you ate a kitten or a great ape, and then found out later, would you have the same reaction?

Probably. I am less critical when "i'm a guest in someone else's house". Know what i mean?

Thanks for contributing to the subject rather than dismissing the topic at hand.

You're welcome.

I think there are two things confusing your thread. The term "okay" in the subject line, and the place in HL seem to suggest that the question is about nutrition. This might be clearer saying "ethical" and in p&s.

 

[TheDeceased]

^I see your point and I'm quite happy for the thread to be moved if that helps to avoid any further confusion.

I eat plant and animal equally. Ethically, i feel that it is the same to eat either.

You honestly see no difference between eating corn and eating a dolphin?
What about endangered species?

The only moral argument that I agree with in terms of harvesting one's food is the manner with which the lives of those plants or animals are cultivated. Caged versus free range chickens for instance. I still do not elect to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle because i don't think that that would make a difference. There are better ways to ensure animal cruelties are kept to a minimum, such as tight regulations on the food industry.

Realistically the food industry is never going to offer quality of life to livestock.

To say that not eating meat makes no difference seems to be a denial of personal responsibility. Couldn't you apply that attitude to all manner of immoral acts?

"Due to the high frequency of this admittedly immoral act occurring in society, it makes no difference whether or not I contribute to it."

More and more cattle are being raised in increasingly tight spaces in order to satisfy demand. If a billion people stopped eating meat, then that demand wouldn't continue to increase at the same rate. Although you can't make the decisions for the other 999,999,999 people, you can contribute.

I'm not saying that you should, but to say that you cannot make a difference isn't true.

You can make a very very small difference.

Probably. I am less critical when "i'm a guest in someone else's house". Know what i mean?

I understand how you wouldn't verbally object and throw the plate at your father-in-law's head, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect you in some way. Chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA. It's pretty close to cannibalism.

 

[L2R]

You honestly see no difference between eating corn and eating a dolphin?
What about endangered species?

I do not see the difference simply by the labels "animal" or "vegetable". I would oppose eating endangered species of either catagory.

Realistically the food industry is never going to offer quality of life to livestock.

To say that not eating meat makes no difference seems to be a denial of personal responsibility. Couldn't you apply that attitude to all manner of immoral acts?

"Due to the high frequency of this admittedly immoral act occurring in society, it makes no difference whether or not I contribute to it."

I don't deny responsibility, I don't agree that boycotts work.

More and more cattle are being raised in increasingly tight spaces in order to satisfy demand. If a billion people stopped eating meat, then that demand wouldn't continue to increase at the same rate. Although you can't make the decisions for the other 999,999,999 people, you can contribute.

I'm not saying that you should, but to say that you cannot make a difference isn't true.

You can make a very very small difference.

I believe i CAN make a difference, by selecting my food conscientiously, by supporting political campaigns against animal cruelty, etc.

I understand how you wouldn't verbally object and throw the plate at your father-in-law's head, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect you in some way. Chimpanzees share 98% of the same DNA. It's pretty close to cannibalism.

Even if they had fed me a human baby without me knowing, there is nothing pragmatic about cracking the shits at people in their own country. As a guest of a foreign sovereign, you need to respect your hosts. If you are eating dinner at the home of an important business associate (not a friend) and you see their spouse spanking their child harder than you feel comfortable with, what do you do?

btw: during that same trip, i respectfully declined to eat tortoise.

 

[TheDeceased]

I don't put myself into situations where I cannot speak my mind. I don't have business associates but if I saw someone beating a child I would say something regardless of whether or not it was my uncle or the President of France. This gets me in trouble a lot.

If someone feeds you a human baby or chimpanzee without telling you first, that is seriously fucked up. I would object much more aggressively than to the child beating thing. This way, they know next time not to serve people human/monkey meat without a disclaimer.

To say/do nothing is wrong IMO.

I don't agree that boycotts work.

Choosing not to wear fur is a boycott in the same sense as choosing not to eat dolphin meat.

I don't understand how you don't think it works given supply on demand.

I believe i CAN make a difference, by selecting my food conscientiously, by supporting political campaigns against animal cruelty, etc.

But by eating meat aren't you directly contributing to animal cruelty? Regardless of whether or not you choose your food conscientiously, livestock in terms of big industry is never treated well. Free range farms are horrible. They're not as bad as factory farms, but still.

It sounds like you're supporting a campaign against something that you yourself are part of.

I do not see the difference simply by the labels "animal" or "vegetable".

Do you see the difference between wood and metal or carbon dioxide and oxygen?

What about fungi? Micro-organisms?

Do you just lump everything that is alive together into one category except for humans?

I'm not sure how you can not see the difference between animals and vegetables considering you are capable of differentiating between humans and other animals.

If you had a choice to either set an elephant on fire or burn down a vineyard, which would you do?

Honestly.