Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[thujone]

i was expecting something horrid but those are pretty decent conditions for chickens

 

[turkalurk]

But this implies that animals owe us something, because we 'gave' them life. The opposite is more correct, that if you bring animals to life then you have the burden of responsibility for this state, unwanted/unasked for as it always is. It is YOU that bought this creature to life, it is therefore YOU that is responsible with providing it with a satisfactory existence. The animal owe's you nothing whatsoever. This is not a fair exchange. It is almost evil to say- look at this unwanted gift I give you, now suffer for the duration of it because you should (but can't really) appreciate this above the alternative void. That is expecting way too much from most animals and is illogical and unfair. I appreciate your sentiment, but I think this view is slightly reversed or something.

Truly not attacking you here, this is something that I hear quite commonly, that animals are in debt to us because they otherwise would not have lived. I just believe the opposite is true. I think it is the least we can do, to provide quality of life to lifeforms that we have forced to live.



I'm sure some farmers do, but in reality, ALL should. They owe everything to their animals, their entire lives- why not make this obligatory, that if you are going to take a creatures life, that you show it some natural justice and grant it some peace and the space to breed/live out their biological imperative, at least for a while? Or at least get rid of fucking devices like sow-stalls and see them for the utterly inhuman practises they are! Their is very little to lose by doing so. I dunno if that sounds naive, because if people want to eat meat everyday, its unlikely that organic and free range farming will ever supply that quantity and factory farming will continue to be the norm.

In my opinion, this is close to evil. What has happened to this great quality of human empathy when the majority of people seem to be willing to ignore this:

I'd point out the cute timidity of the runt standing awkwardly at the back, but the system that animal is part of is unwilling to allow such an animal its natural inclination, and its weakness is unprofitable and has already doomed it. What is the fucking point of that sort of existence? I would rather die then live in pain or confined- that is not life, that is a mockery of it.

please stop arguing with me out of context. Go back and read how many times I have agreed that inhumane practices should be abandoned. How many times do I have to clarify what my argument is and is not. If you want to talk fairness, this ia your blog if you are arguing with me than shouldn't you feel an obligation to actually counter the person's points and not the points you assign to my argumwnts that contradict so many statements I have made.



If one imagines how greater his existence can be and suffers a life of unsatisfactory conditions he ought to kill himself to end there suffering because it is better not to live at all? The problem is that you have to create the life in the first place to even give it the option to decide its fate.

 

[Ninae]

This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.

 

[turkalurk]

This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.

on both sides it seems. Live and let live, I like to say! Until I get hungry...

 

[murphythecat]

i agree

This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.

 

[What 23]

For me it is at least sometimes a matter of I lived through years of being terrified of food/reactions and feeling sick and at times nearly fainting, and coming here to a bunch of fucking psych users (? Sometimes I think... Not that there is anything wrong with it but...) who lost their boundaries with the world and never fully reconstituted, who are now trying to tell me I'm evil or "wrong" for eating food that I am not terrified of... That doesn't cause me to feel pain.

My problem in part is being of limited choice already, and having some fucking Nazi (well, a word for a dictator) tell me I have less of a choice. Fuck that and fuck them. It wouldn't even be wrong for me to eat them.

It makes me feel homicidal. Even genocidal. Not that it is a new feeling, but fuck people putting their "morals" on me. If a chicken has to suffer getting slaughtered so that I don't have to suffer, it is a no brainer for me. The chicken dies, and my body doesn't have to struggle to digest proteins and things it has trouble with. The food is partially broken down, and in a form that I was "designed" to digest.

 

[swilow]

please stop arguing with me out of context. Go back and read how many times I have agreed that inhumane practices should be abandoned. How many times do I have to clarify what my argument is and is not. If you want to talk fairness, this ia your blog if you are arguing with me than shouldn't you feel an obligation to actually counter the person's points and not the points you assign to my argumwnts that contradict so many statements I have made.

Okay, I apologise if I am taking you out of context, but I just felt like I was responding to the points you raised more broadly. You've mentioned a few times the cattle that you see grazing peacefully, which makes me think you are somewhat unaware of the reality of the "inhumane practises" you wish to see abandoned.

I'm really just pointing out what I think are flaws in your reasoning, you just think I'm beating you over the head with it.

If one imagines how greater his existence can be and suffers a life of unsatisfactory conditions he ought to kill himself to end there suffering because it is better not to live at all? The problem is that you have to create the life in the first place to even give it the option to decide its fate.

You've lost me here I must admit. Are you saying what I think you are, that living a life of sufferring is better then nothing? That sounds like trying to excuse inhuman practises (as you yourself put it) by implying that it is still a gift of sorts. In my opinion, it is not...

This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.

Can you even remotely quantify that? Is having a discussion on the internet really that extreme? I think we all need to understand that dissent and disagreement is not the same thing as lack of respect. Some of my closest friends are people I have regular, heated arguments with.

 

[turkalurk]

Okay, I apologise if I am taking you out of context, but I just felt like I was responding to the points you raised more broadly. You've mentioned a few times the cattle that you see grazing peacefully, which makes me think you are somewhat unaware of the reality of the "inhumane practises" you wish to see abandoned.

I'm really just pointing out what I think are flaws in your reasoning, you just think I'm beating you over the head with it.



You've lost me here I must admit. Are you saying what I think you are, that living a life of sufferring is better then nothing? That sounds like trying to excuse inhuman practises (as you yourself put it) by implying that it is still a gift of sorts.

you are implying the opposite. That not living a life at all is better than a life of confined spaces and a mechanical death.

I told you how to address my points. Post some studies done. I would say neither of us or the chicken know if they would rather live in a shack or not at all. If I were a chicken in a shack I would want to live free and in the wild. If I were in the dangers of the wild where life is a constant struggle to survive, I world rather be a pet chicken. You keep acting like eating meat is inherently wrong which has little to do with inhumane business practices. I have stated from the get go my goal is to present an argument that it can be ethical to eat meat. The only holes in my logic presented are not directed at my arguments but counter only a strawman interpretation.

 

[Ninae]

All the mindless arguments and justifications, like arguing for the welfare of plants when you don't even care about animals. It's just an excuse and not connected with reality or the life they live in any way. It just comes from a purely subjective standpoint and has little relevance to anyone but yourself.

 

[turkalurk]

All the mindless arguments and justifications, like arguing for the welfare of plants when you don't even care about animals. It's just an excuse and not connected with reality or the life they live in any way. It just comes from a purely subjective standpoint and has little relevance to anyone but yourself.

Food preferences tend to be subjective as is experience itself.
I gave you a solid reason why humans should keep meat on the menu. I am not saying it is right or wrong, its just the way things are for now.

 

[What 23]

what23, what did you eat?

I eat eggs, all sort of beans, seeds, nuts, fruits, vegetable, lentils, tofu and i havent lost any weight.

For two years I thought all I could tolerate acceptably were hemp seeds. I wasn't far from the truth. Some days I ate only about 800 calories worth of them, and a lot wasn't even digested... so it was likely about 300 calories or so that actually made it into my body.

Edit: Numbers... I guess I was off. I would eat about 1300 a day often, not that 800 days didn't exist (and 2600), and I malabsorbed. It was as if matter would pass undigested, and in significant enough amounts, even when I would chew it as best as I could or put it through a food processor. I was probably less than 120 at a point, and I am six feet tall. When I weighed myself and saw 120 I had clothes on.

 

[LuGoJ]

This argument truly brings out some of the worst in people.

Any passionate argument or debate generally does, i think it has to do with the fact that both sides think the other is kind of crazy. Vegetarians think meat eaters are absolutely nuts for eating meat, and meat eater think vegetarians are nuts for freaking out about it so much. At least this thread isn't an abortion thread! those can be even worse! If we were to have a thread about abortion, I bet tons of vegetarians would support it and tons of meat eaters wouldn't. When you think about it, that's kind of crazy in itself. Everyone places different values on different life forms at different stages of their existence.

For all we know, we may be next on the menu one of these days. Wouldn't that be a trip? Meat eaters try to start eating vegetarians, and vegetarians start to round up meat eaters to use them as fertilizer.

 

[Ninae]

But as long as abortions are going on what is wrong with killing and eating animals?

 

[murphythecat]

Food preferences tend to be subjective as is experience itself.
I gave you a solid reason why humans should keep meat on the menu. I am not saying it is right or wrong, its just the way things are for now.

no you didnt say one convincing argument.

food preference is subjective
morality is objective

go ahead, eat meat, but dont try to convince people its morally acceptable, or rather, dont try to convince yourself it is.

on both sides it seems. Live and let live, I like to say! Until I get hungry...

exactly, live and let live. dont create animals then kill them.

please stop arguing with me out of context. Go back and read how many times I have agreed that inhumane practices should be abandoned. How many times do I have to clarify what my argument is and is not. If you want to talk fairness, this ia your blog if you are arguing with me than shouldn't you feel an obligation to actually counter the person's points and not the points you assign to my argumwnts that contradict so many statements I have made.



If one imagines how greater his existence can be and suffers a life of unsatisfactory conditions he ought to kill himself to end there suffering because it is better not to live at all? The problem is that you have to create the life in the first place to even give it the option to decide its fate.

we create life of animals, make them go thrue a life of suffering and then kill them and you find this acceptable because we at least give them a life.

It is mutually beneficial. We supply them a life that they would otherwise be without, we protect them from danger and supply them with food and shelter, and in exchange when they reach a certain stage in their development, we take the life we gave them back and reutilize the resources we gave them. We eat them and supply our body and all the other little organisms that live with in us the sustenance we gave them. Whats left geta recycled back into the system. Like I said, it depends on the individual practices of those who raise the animals. The farmers that I know, treat their animals fairly. Some even love them. Its all a matter of perspective. I am not much for seeing things in black or white.

how kind of us!

 

[LuGoJ]

But as long as abortions are going on what is wrong with killing and eating animals?

No no no, i didn't mean that. I meant a thread about abortion can be worse than this thread in terms of viciousness, and that often the people you would expect to support something based on other beliefs of theirs, often won't. I didn't mean to insinuate that I was speaking about abortion itself! sorry for the confusion

 

[Ninae]

It was a parody.

"What's the point of changing one evil when there are so many other evils in the world? Even if we get rid of one, there will still be all the rest, so we might as well leave it as it is".

It's that kind of reasoning that ensures the world never improves (and that people can't seen further than their own interests).

 

[turkalurk]

no you didnt say one convincing argument.

food preference is subjective
morality is objective

go ahead, eat meat, but dont try to convince people its morally acceptable, or rather, dont try to convince yourself it is.


exactly, live and let live. dont create animals then kill them.


we create life of animals, make them go thrue a life of suffering and then kill them and you find this acceptable because we at least give them a life.



lol, this is insane.

According to the ethical principles of universialization, veganism as an ethical is problematic, because there is no current model for transitioning world for such a drastic change in the dynamics of ecosystems.

If this is the most illogical argument, please address the points I made about competition for space and resources without human interventions to keep populations in check.


If only things were as easy as there seem to be in your mind. Everyone can just quit eating meat and eat more vegetation, problem solved. Like I said, such a view is naive and short-sighted.

 

[murphythecat]

as shown previously, vegetable fields are much less environmentally damageable.
if everyone would stop eating meat, it would be for the benefit not only for the poor animals, but for the planet and every living organism on the planet

and, honestly im not sure I undrstand what you mean here:
please address the points I made about competition for space and resources without human interventions to keep populations in check.

According to the ethical principles of universialization, veganism as an ethical is problematic, because there is no current model for transitioning world for such a drastic change in the dynamics of ecosystems.

If this is the most illogical argument, please address the points I made about competition for space and resources without human interventions to keep populations in check.


If only things were as easy as there seem to be in your mind. Everyone can just quit eating meat and eat more vegetation, problem solved. Like I said, such a view is naive and short-sighted.

 

[What 23]

Murphy... The eggs you eat... Where do you buy them?

 

[turkalurk]

It was a parody.

"What's the point of changing one evil when there are so many other evils in the world? Even if we get rid of one, there will still be all the rest, so we might as well leave it as it is".

It's that kind of reasoning that ensures the world never improves (and that people can't seen further than their own interests).

its goes both ways. some people's interest are more focused on superficial ethics which makes them feel all warm and fuzzy but doesn't address any of the problems with genuine solutions. They feel good when they can feel they are making the "ethical" choice. So, even when people claim to be making an ethical decision it is in their self interest to avoid feeling guilt and to indulge in the gratification of being pleased with oneself. I call it smug because you actually don't know what is best for the world, you only think you do. So, when you assume to know such things you come off with a kind of smugness.

As for objective morality, its supposed to be objectively immoral to lie. But what if you were hiding a Jew in World war 2 and a nazi came asking if and where you were hiding them. I don't see things in black and white so its not even a sacrifice of integrity to lie for the greater good. Ask me if your ass looks fat in those jeans and I will tell you whatever I think you wanna hear.