Is it okay for vegans to eat oysters?

[Harambulus]

Reading a couple of OP's responses they are either an idiot or a troll or both.

Either way I soon lost interest in this discussion.

 

[TheDeceased]

I am clearly a mentally retarded troll.

Thank you for your non-troll like contribution to the thread.

I will value it always.

 

[TheDeceased]

I don't think anyone is going to be able to answer this question for you... it would totally depend on the person and why they choose to call themselves vegan.

What are the main reasons?

1. To not cause animals to suffer.

2. Health reasons.

3. Environmental impact.

I'm not sure about the order, but these are the top main reasons I've encountered for people becoming vegan. I have asked them. Number one is the most common. Questions can be answered regardless of whether or not multiple motivations exist for the same thing.

to rephrase: Those vegans who chose not to eat meat, whose primary motivation is the moral issue of killing animals, how is it any different (morally) to kill a plant than a Hydra?

To say this question cannot be answered is a little dismissive, but hey that's just continuing on with the dismissive nature of the entire thread.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Meat tastes like shit?

They were only ever fed vegies as a child and don't know how to cook meat properly?

They are lactose intolerant?

 

[axl blaze]

Reading a couple of OP's responses they are either an idiot or a troll or both.

Either way I soon lost interest in this discussion.

calling out the OP as a troll while coming off as a troll? I commend you for this irony

I think the question is very valid, and this is evidenced by the quantity and quality of responses that have followed

a general rule for me is that if I don't have anything worthwhile to introduce in the conversation, I stay out of it

 

[TheDeceased]

Busty,

Despite those being potentially valid reasons for becoming a vegan, they are not the most common reasons. Besides, I have clarified my question. It pertains to vegans who chose not to eat meat based on moral reasons (again this is the majority of vegans from my experience, generally speaking) and I know a lot of vegans. My brother my ex-wife, my best friend, etc. If that isn't you, ie. if you aren't a vegan, which you aren't by your own admission, then don't answer the question. It's pretty simple. The question "What are the main reasons?" was rhetorical. I answered it directly after I asked it. I really wasn't looking for more obscure reasons that motivate some people to become vegans.

I don't know if you think you're upsetting me, but from my perspective you're just embarrassing yourself and I'm humoring you because sometimes it's good to bounce ideas off walls.

 

[Busty St Clare]

You don't have a monopoly on having vegans for friends. I fucking doof for Christ sake. I go into the bush with 1000 hippies and dance under the stars while people eat, drink dance and have to smell my delicious lamb targine cooking around the campsite. I have heard every reason under the Sun for becoming a Vegan but the under lying reason is usually some "Holier than Thou" mystic bullshit about not harming animals, which in itself is commendable, but I still pertain that if you care that much for anumals you should also have to consider the wellbeing of plants. Life is life and without humans the planet will still revolve around carnivores eating herbivores in a nice symbiotic relationship.

Personally it doesn't phase me who eats what or for what reason. You don't eat meat? Fine, plenty more lamb curry for me. It is bad for my health? Perhaps, but I'm not planning of living past 70 as I believe you become more of a drain on this planet by doing so. Make peace with the planet, respect mother nature, use her resources and be prepared to be consumed when you die.

 

[TheDeceased]

Yeah that's what I was saying. Again you are very astute. I monopolize vegans.

If "life is life" and it is as simple as that, then why are you compelled to continue the conversation? L2R said "life is life", the exact same words ages ago.

You disagree with me. I get it. Got anything else to add?

Life isn't life.

Micro-organisms are alive yet they are valued differently by you and L2R and everyone else. There are "things" that are "alive" due to unnatural conditions, like: HIV (micro-organism), black fungus (fungi), etc.

How do you explain these?

If I have to simplify it further, to something you can relate to, why kill maggots? If you find maggots (life) growing in a bowl in your kitchen in some neglected left-overs, then why kill it?

If life is life, and animals are animals, then killing life is killing life. Right?

Vegans kill animals. There is an unspoken distinction. Isn't there?

 

[L2R]

i covered both your micro-organism and HIV questions earlier. so why should anyone converse with you when you plainly ignore answers not in line with your already made up conclusions?

 

[TheDeceased]

Whatever L2R. Made up conclusions, yes. Okay. Look, if your contributions continue to be self satisfying nonsense please do so by PM. If you have something to contribute of value on the other hand, please do. Unlike Busty, you are more than capable of making a serious point rather than taking the discussion personally. Take the high road.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

To say this question cannot be answered is a little dismissive, but hey that's just continuing on with the dismissive nature of the entire thread.

It's not dismissive.... I just meant that it would depend on the individual. I don't know if we can give you a broad answer which applies to everyone. Every vegan would have to answer that for themselves.

to rephrase: Those vegans who chose not to eat meat, whose primary motivation is the moral issue of killing animals, how is it any different (morally) to kill a plant than a Hydra?

To answer it phrased this way, just in my own opinion, I don't think it is different. This is why militant veganism, for the purpose of not taking life, doesn't make much sense to me. We are always taking life one way or another.

 

[Bearlove]

Firstly you cannot simply consider 'ALL' vegans as the same - there is no real hard and fast or legal definition on what 'Vegan' means/there is no right or wrong.

People take up vegetarianism / veganism etc for their own personal beliefs.

I personally say that it’s fine for all vegans to eat whatever they are happy with - I really don’t care about the 'small print' (IE where does ‘animal origin’ or ‘water filter’ start/ finish).

This is simply another ‘open ended’ question where you (the OP) can argue the case for both sides.

IF you wish to set a number of rules on what makes a vegan and then determine for us all where an ‘ Oyster’ falls within those set parameters then we can argue / discuss it in more depth.

 

[TheDeceased]

I never lumped all vegans together into one category. It has come up numerous times that people become vegans for various reasons, but as I said, from my experience, the majority of people do it for moral reasons.

This thread is a discussion about the implications of the word "animal" and a comparison between the sentient abilities or lack thereof of different species. If you don't want to seriously partake in the discussion, then don't. To respond to this six page long thread by saying something that has already been covered a number of times, much less something as simple as: "vegans are vegans for different reasons," is dismissive. I'm not sure how else it is supposed to be interpreted. In the context, what I was saying was very clear. The whole thread has been about the moral implications of killing sentient life in comparison to non-sentient life. You were either being dismissive or you didn't read/understand the thread.

I don't know if we can give you a broad answer which applies to everyone. Every vegan would have to answer that for themselves.

I didn't ask for a broad answer that applies to everyone.

militant veganism, for the purpose of not taking life, doesn't make much sense to me. We are always taking life one way or another.

I don't think you can lump all of life into one category.

The statement: "We are always taking life one way or another" is both dismissive, in the sense that it trivializes the point of this discussion and almost meaningless. It is too broad a statement to have any significance.

"Taking life" is very different in different situations. Murdering a human is not the same as a predator hunting prey or a human killing an animal. Washing your hands, mowing the lawn. All these things are "taking life". That doesn't mean that the act of washing your hands is comparable to killing a dolphin in any way whatsoever. Nor is there any moral implication of eating fruits or vegetables as far as I can see.

If something is incapable of suffering, like a cabbage or some corn or something, then why does it bother you to take it's life on any level? You said earlier you prefer to eat fruit and nuts then vegetables. You said you feel better when something falls off a tree naturally. Why?

What's the difference morally between something that grows on a tree that has no feelings and something that grows in the ground and has no feelings?

If we are always taking life one way or another, then why make the distinction between anything?

Isn't it more complex than that?

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

If something is incapable of suffering, like a cabbage or some corn or something, then why does it bother you to take it's life on any level? You said earlier you prefer to eat fruit and nuts then vegetables. You said you feel better when something falls off a tree naturally. Why?

Because no life is taken at all. It isn't that I have a problem with taking life... but it is nice to know you can eat from a living organism that will continue to provide food while flourishing on it's own. I mean it doesn't get much more sustainable than that.

For me it just comes down to feeling... there is no real explainable logic or reason behind it. I don't eat beef but I do eat chicken. Why? Both are feeling, living things. I would feel sad for both to have to die to feed me. But, I absolutely for whatever reason, could not kill a cow. Maybe because it is a big creature and would take a harsher blow to kill it, maybe because it is a mammal like myself, maybe just because I think they are super cute. I don't know why, but I feel if I couldn't kill the cow myself I shouldn't be eating cow that came from some factory farm.

But I do eat chicken, because if my family and myself were starving I do believe in desperation I could snap a chicken's neck for food. I'd cry and feel awful but I could do it. Same with fishing. I could do it.

There is no arguable reason or logic behind it. I'm well aware they are both living and I don't believe either of them deserve pain. I would like to eat more vegan foods simply because I wouldn't want to kill a chicken either, but if I feel like I need some meat, I'd go with the animal I'd have an easier time killing.

I believe all life is equal and worthy of the same respect, plant animal bug or human. But that doesn't mean my human mind doesn't have hang ups and preferences. My point is that veganism is a very emotional based thing for most and not really something people can probably argue logically for. For whatever reason, most vegans would consider an oyster somewhat of a fish, and even though it might not feel pain, they would associate it with an animal more than a plant.

So I think it is more of a personal emotional attachment thing vs something people actively choose and think about based on what can feel what and how much.

 

[TheDeceased]

IF you wish to set a number of rules on what makes a vegan and then determine for us all where an ‘Oyster’ falls within those set parameters then we can argue / discuss it in more depth.

I don't just want to make rules, I want to crack open your head and replace your frontal lobe with a dozen oysters. [/sarcasm]

Oysters are arbitrary. They are ideal for this discussion, however, along with a number of other animals I could have chosen, as they are incapable of suffering. Though some people argued they can think, without offering any explanation as to why they would be able to. So that brought me to the Hydra which obviously doesn't think. (Unless you're one of those crazy tree hugging lunatics who believe that trees are capable of decision making.)

I'm not particularly interested in Hydra or oysters.

Throughout this thread we've meandered off to anecdotes about L2R eating dog meat in Asia somewhere, Busty eating dolphins with aboriginals. Tigers, killer whales, apes, horses, etc. The quality of discussion in this thread is higher than most threads on this site, so I'm not sure why you're not hopping from one sub forum to another, endlessly pointing out the futility of various people's discussions. Did I piss in your mailbox or something? Cause I tend to do shit like that.

I am not dictating what is and what isn't right, I'm asking questions, a lot of which are going unanswered. Most recent of which: What is the distinction between killing maggots and killing an oyster?

I'm not purposely trying to stump people into changing their belief system, I'm genuinely interested how someone could make a distinction between these two life forms? What separates them? And: what (another question that wasn't answered before) is the link between a Tiger and a Hydra?

Again if you don't want to partake in this discussion, then don't.

 

[TheDeceased]

Because no life is taken at all. It isn't that I have a problem with taking life... but it is nice to know you can eat from a living organism that will continue to provide food while flourishing on it's own. I mean it doesn't get much more sustainable than that.

Seeds and fruit that contain seeds are supposed to be spread to create more trees so you are kind of "taking life", really but as I said that doesn't mean anything. I see no difference between edible plants that grow on trees and edible plants that grow in the ground. A cabbage has a similar lifespan to an apple not an apple tree.

I believe all life is equal and worthy of the same respect, plant animal bug or human.

No you don't. Nobody does.

That statement contradicts a number of things you've already said.

My point is that veganism is a very emotional based thing for most and not really something people can probably argue logically for.

We're not schoolgirls. It is better for animals to think about the issue in more depth then it is to just get emotional and become incapable of logic. We're not discussing someone being raped by an elephant when they were three. This isn't group therapy for people with post traumatic stress disorder.

If it's too emotional to be able to think about, then why go on a forum and contribute to a discussion about it?

Doesn't make any sense.

most vegans would consider an oyster somewhat of a fish, and even though it might not feel pain, they would associate it with an animal more than a plant.

Oysters are invertebrates, like snails. But yes they are animals.

Here's another question that's been ignored:

What is the significance of the word animal?

 

[GeeMeeUpp]

Personally I don't, but I've never tried one anyway. On the off chance they enjoy being live brita-filters, I'm going to steer clear.

 

[Busty St Clare]

What about humans who suffer from Congenital analgesia? They can not feel pain, (unless you tell them a sad story I guess) there for by your argument TD, should be free to be slaughtered and eaten. It is caused by a deficiency in the gene SCN9A, so I guess evolution as created the perfect vegan food for us to consume.

The real question is do you harvest them young, while the flesh is tender or wait a few months for fat deposits to form so you could cook a good crackle? (I hear we taste similar to pork)

 

[TheDeceased]

I never said that the ability to feel physical pain was the only factor. This has already come up. L2R mentioned people with brain injuries. As I pointed out, those people have families and although they may not be able to suffer physically, they can suffer psychologically and suffer through the loss of their life.

An oyster on the other hand has no quality of life and is incapable of both pain and pleasure (these are two of the basic qualifiers for sentience which is why the conversation has steered towards pain at times), so I (still) don't see the issue.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Sitting on a beautiful beach eating and drinking all day doesn't sound that bad of a life to me.

So we are in agreement, we'll only eat orphan's with a deficient SCN9A gene.