Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[para-thesis]

but, are you in that position where you are starving to death and need to kill and eat another human? no, so why bring those situation when we are not in this situation and you go to a supermarket and decide to buy meat rather then cereals, beans, lentils, nuts, eggs, ect.

and, your diet and the choice you make to eat meat is also purely intellectual and you are influenced by the culture where you live. there are close to a billion humans in india that are vegetarian.

I actually think its the other way around. They're influenced by the culture in which they live, and the religion that country practices. Before their religion, and resulting cultural beliefs, there was just human nature and biological necessity. And out of that biological harmony with nature grew a being with teeth capable of ripping meat, and a digestive system well-suited to assimilating nutrients gained from meat. you can sit there from the safety of your climate controlled apartment and talk about your high-handed morals, and your advanced capacity for empathy because you are so certain of cosmic karma, but what you cant deny, no matter how much you'd like to, is the being nature shaped you to be.

 

[socko]

I actually think its the other way around. They're influenced by the culture in which they live, and the religion that country practices. Before their religion, and resulting cultural beliefs, there was just human nature and biological necessity. And out of that biological harmony with nature grew a being with teeth capable of ripping meat, and a digestive system well-suited to assimilating nutrients gained from meat. you can sit there from the safety of your climate controlled apartment and talk about your high-handed morals, and your advanced capacity for empathy because you are so certain of cosmic karma, but what you cant deny, no matter how much you'd like to, is the being nature shaped you to be.

During famines and other cases of starvation like people lost at sea or expeditions into remote areas, people's true nature comes out. There are real life historical examples of this. One famous one was in the United States in the 19th century. There was an expedition crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains that got snowed in at Donner Pass. They were hopelessly stuck the whole winter, but they didn't have enough food, and weren't skilled in outdoor survival. In the same group, some people harvested the meat of other humans, but some did not. Some people probably know themselves well enough to get an idea of what they will do if they are ever in a famine. I'd imagine that any anorexic person or a very disciplined vegan or vegetarian would be less likely to eat other people than an average omnivore.

 

[para-thesis]

During famines and other cases of starvation like people lost at sea or expeditions into remote areas, people's true nature comes out. There are real life historical examples of this. One famous one was in the United States in the 19th century. There was an expedition crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains that got snowed in at Donner Pass. They were hopelessly stuck the whole winter, but they didn't have enough food, and weren't skilled in outdoor survival. In the same group, some people harvested the meat of other humans, but some did not. Some people probably know themselves well enough to get an idea of what they will do if they are ever in a famine. I'd imagine that any anorexic person or a very disciplined vegan or vegetarian would be less likely to eat other people than an average omnivore.

And they would deny their own nature based upon an unnecessary moralistic attitude to the bitter end. And like any organism that wont or cant do what it takes to survive, they wouldn't, the end.

 

[socko]

I guess so. People are willing to die for their beliefs.

 

[para-thesis]

I guess so. People are willing to die for their beliefs.

I know they would, and I think thats something that people need to take a look at. because when you value something that is not verifyably, and empirically the truth, how valuable is it really? I've seen quite a lot of people on here talking about the vibrations of crystals, karma, telepathy with animals, etc. and I have to say, backing up your claims with feelings and personal beliefs has never served an argument well, much less should be a philosophy anyone should live by.

 

[ForEverAfter]

who said that I supported contraception?

If you don't support contraception, you're an idiot.
It's your decision whether or not you use contraception.
But, not supporting it is downright stupid.

And it doesn't matter, either way, because you're using a computer.
You can't deny that, for convenience sake...

if it did come down to cannibalism, damn right I would be prepared to eat you. It may take awhile for me to work up the hunger, but in the end i'm a mammal, an omnivorous one at that, and my nature would prevail over all my purely intellectual reasoning on morals. When it comes down to necessity vs. Morals, whos really fool enough to believe that their morals are more important?

I'd eat you first.
Right now though, since I don't need to eat humans or animals (that have been mistreated) I chose not to.
There is no necessity to consume meat, currently, so your point is moot.

 

[turkalurk]

If you don't support contraception, you're an idiot.
It's your decision whether or not you use contraception.
But, not supporting it is downright stupid.

And it doesn't matter, either way, because you're using a computer.
You can't deny that, for convenience sake...



I'd eat you first.
Right now though, since I don't need to eat humans or animals (that have been mistreated) I chose not to.
There is no necessity to consume meat, currently, so your point is moot.

haven't seen many vegan tough guys. Herbivores are usually the prey. Just sayin...

 

[swilow]

yeah, that makes sense. Absolutism when its convenient. Argue a person to death and then change your position.

I'm going to have to assume that this post was directed at me. Before you say another thing, please find the posts where I have taken an absolute stance.

You are actually inventing things now or mixing people up.

At least when I'm fucked I try and say nice things ffs :D

There is so much self-aggrandizement in that statement its ridiculous.... you may think its possible for the human race to seperate itself from nature, but how exactly is that even possible? We live within the same ecosystem as everything else. Basically, although he couldn't quite articulate it correctly, what23 was right. You make these moral decisions based off of the luxury of being insulated from life-or-death survival. You cant tell me your philosophy holds any water as optimal if, pushed by the necessity, you were forced to eat meat. Yes, it may be hypothetical, but if you were in a place with no fauna or available flora, you would be forced to eat meat. Because you are an omnivore, and you cant just choose to deny a million years of human evolution because you feel nicer about it that way.

If you were in a place where no meat was available, but plenty of plant-life, you could, and would, survive. I don't think either of our statements mean anything :D

*however, if all you had to eat was meat, you would absolutely die. Scurvy's bad. But there wouldn't be any meat, because the animals you would be eating would not exist either without plants. Not praising the tree-spirits yet, just stating a factt.

Ethics has nothing to do with the diet of an animal. But you seem to think you're so outside of the very world you live in that you can just disregard it. Why is that?

How did you get that impression? He actually comes across as pretty grounded. For a Laotian.

The manner in which you feed yourself should really always have ethics as a vital part. I don't believe we need to crush the world to get what we need. There's different way's to act out that conclusion, I've chosen one way; I support that and all other ways people try to eat conscientiously. There's no need to shit on someone's choice just because its not important to you. IMO, there is nothing wrong if someone chooses to eat meat; do what you want.

 

[turkalurk]

really willow? What is wrong with you and why do you like to make an ass of yourself by always ass-uming I am talking to you when I am talking to murphy again.

 

[ForEverAfter]

It wasn't at all clear who that comment was directed towards.
I, too, thought it might have been directed at me.
Sometimes you need to be a little more clear.

You're consistently hostile, turk.
Willow, on the other hand, is mostly friendly.
You have no case.

haven't seen many vegan tough guys. Herbivores are usually the prey. Just sayin...

Vegetarians are more likely to be passive, when there is no point in being otherwise.
But - when it comes to life and death - the will to survive trumps ethical dietary choices.
If it is between me and someone else, I will do anything I have to in order to survive.

Strict vegetarians/vegans with unconditionally passive temperaments might have trouble in a post-apocalyptic situation, but I wouldn't.
There are a lot of meat eaters that I know who would have more issues adjusting, than I would.
I'm ready to kill to survive, but not to kill for taste.

 

[turkalurk]

It wasn't at all clear who that comment was directed towards.
I, too, thought it might have been directed at me.
Sometimes you need to be a little more clear.

You're consistently hostile, turk.
Willow, on the other hand, is mostly friendly.
You have no case.



Vegetarians are more likely to be passive, when there is no point in being otherwise.
But - when it comes to life and death - the will to survive trumps ethical dietary choices.
If it is between me and someone else, I will do anything I have to in order to survive.

Strict vegetarians/vegans with unconditionally passive temperaments might have trouble in a post-apocalyptic situation, but I wouldn't.
There are a lot of meat eaters that I know who would have more issues adjusting, than I would.
I'm ready to kill to survive, but not to kill for taste.

wow, dude, you would be willing to kill me and eat me to survive? That's fucked up.

 

[para-thesis]

*however, if all you had to eat was meat, you would absolutely die. Scurvy's bad. But there wouldn't be any meat, because the animals you would be eating would not exist either without plants. Not praising the tree-spirits yet, just stating a factt.

actually thats not true. The Inuit as what23 stated earlier survived on an exclusively meat-eating diet without contracting scurvy. I think you're misunderstanding scurvy to be honest.


How did you that impression? He actually comes across as pretty grounded. For a Laotian.

The manner in which you feed yourself should really always have ethics as a vital part. I don't believe we need to crush the world to get what we need. There's different way's to act out that conclusion, I've chosen one way; I support that and all other ways people try to eat conscientiously. There's no need to shit on someone's choice just because its not important to you. IMO, there is nothing wrong if someone chooses to eat meat; do what you want.[/QUOTE]

there is however something strange about someone denying their own nature just for the sake of being some sort of ultra-pacifist. And the claim that a vegan has less impact on the environment is false, organic farming and soy farming in particular produce massive amounts of erosion, ask any farmer.

 

[para-thesis]

By eating the liver and brain of marine animals you are provided enough vitamin c easily to not contract scurvy. In fact, you can survive and thrive on a diet consisting of only meat and fat for years. Now tell me how you can survive on a diet based soley off of plants and berries? Without vitamin b12 or protein deficiencies?

 

[para-thesis]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304431104579550002888434432

 

[ForEverAfter]

^that link requires a subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online. Rather than posting links to members only news sites and forcing people to join up and read long articles to ascertain your point, maybe you could just paraphrase the relevant section of the article... What does the economic sustainability of organic farming (meat / grain / whatever) have to do with the ethics surrounding the mistreatment of animals?

It's a pretty weak debating technique to throw links at people, without any explanation as to what the link means and why/how it is relevant... In the real world, the closest equivalent would be slamming a book down on the table during a conversation and walking out of the room... You're free to do so, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes you right...

...

You keep talking about denying our nature.
Well, you deny your nature every day... don't you?
You keep avoiding properly addressing this lapse in logic.
Why do you object to people being unnatural selectively?

It seems to me that you should, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite, live up to your own standards of naturalism... not just in situations that suit you, but always... Otherwise, who decides when it is okay to be natural and when it isn't? Can't you turn your criticisms about unnatural dietary choices around and aim them at other aspects of your lifestyle? If not, why not?

I'll ask again: why are you using a computer?

wow, dude, you would be willing to kill me and eat me to survive? That's fucked up.

You keep falling back on the same sarcastic stereotypes that don't even have any basis.
As far as conversation goes, it's getting dull... like the second season of a predictable sit-com.
I never said it was wrong to kill... In fact, I said the opposite (more than once).
It isn't fucked up to kill, for survival; It's fucked up to kill for no reason.

 

[para-thesis]

^that link requires a subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online. Rather than posting links to members only news sites and forcing people to join up and read long articles to ascertain your point, maybe you could just paraphrase the relevant section of the article... What does the economic sustainability of organic farming (meat / grain / whatever) have to do with the ethics surrounding the mistreatment of animals?

It's a pretty weak debating technique to throw links at people, without any explanation as to what the link means and why/how it is relevant... In the real world, the closest equivalent would be slamming a book down on the table during a conversation and walking out of the room... You're free to do so, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes you right...

...

You keep talking about denying our nature.
Well, you deny your nature every day... don't you?
You keep avoiding properly addressing this lapse in logic.
Why do you object to people being unnatural selectively?

It seems to me that you should, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite, live up to your own standards of naturalism... not just in situations that suit you, but always... Otherwise, who decides when it is okay to be natural and when it isn't? Can't you turn your criticisms about unnatural dietary choices around and aim them at other aspects of your lifestyle? If not, why not?

I'll ask again: why are you using a computer?

It requires a subscription to view the article? Thats interesting that I can read it, because I dont have one... but here, lemme fill you in. The nitrate fertalizer used in organic farming contaminates ground water, the amount of water used in organic farming is outrageous, the yield you get from organic farming is 40% less, and finally the amount of methane created by the fertalizer pollutes. Basically, if we were to move to your ideal of eating habits we would be polluting, unsustainably growing, and wasting water...more farming for soy is the solution? Think harder. Lol, it doesnt make me a hypocrite to live the way our society does, which has nothing to do with eating habits, seeing as how I dont have a problem with our societies' eating habits, you do remember?

 

[para-thesis]

And yet you label me the hypocrite while overlooking the fact that you deny your own omnivorism at base level. I never said that humans should live more naturally, I said that we should eat more naturally, there's sort of a difference. ..

 

[murphythecat]

but why do you talk about organic food?
also, its apple to orange to compare the environmental impact of veggies and fruits vs meat. both has a impact, but theres dramatic differences and we shouldnt compare them.

^that link requires a subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online. Rather than posting links to members only news sites and forcing people to join up and read long articles to ascertain your point, maybe you could just paraphrase the relevant section of the article... What does the economic sustainability of organic farming (meat / grain / whatever) have to do with the ethics surrounding the mistreatment of animals?

It's a pretty weak debating technique to throw links at people, without any explanation as to what the link means and why/how it is relevant... In the real world, the closest equivalent would be slamming a book down on the table during a conversation and walking out of the room... You're free to do so, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes you right...

...

You keep talking about denying our nature.
Well, you deny your nature every day... don't you?
You keep avoiding properly addressing this lapse in logic.
Why do you object to people being unnatural selectively?

It seems to me that you should, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite, live up to your own standards of naturalism... not just in situations that suit you, but always... Otherwise, who decides when it is okay to be natural and when it isn't? Can't you turn your criticisms about unnatural dietary choices around and aim them at other aspects of your lifestyle? If not, why not?

I'll ask again: why are you using a computer?

It requires a subscription to view the article? Thats interesting that I can read it, because I dont have one... but here, lemme fill you in. The nitrate fertalizer used in organic farming contaminates ground water, the amount of water used in organic farming is outrageous, the yield you get from organic farming is 40% less, and finally the amount of methane created by the fertalizer pollutes. Basically, if we were to move to your ideal of eating habits we would be polluting, unsustainably growing, and wasting water...more farming for soy is the solution? Think harder. Lol, it doesnt make me a hypocrite to live the way our society does, which has nothing to do with eating habits, seeing as how I dont have a problem with our societies' eating habits, you do remember?

 

[para-thesis]

Why not compare organic farming to conventional? Especially when i'm willing to bet the majority of vegans/veggies probably tend to think they're being such good boys and girls by only eating organically farmed, supposedly sustainable, veggies and fruits?

 

[turkalurk]

^that link requires a subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online. Rather than posting links to members only news sites and forcing people to join up and read long articles to ascertain your point, maybe you could just paraphrase the relevant section of the article... What does the economic sustainability of organic farming (meat / grain / whatever) have to do with the ethics surrounding the mistreatment of animals?

It's a pretty weak debating technique to throw links at people, without any explanation as to what the link means and why/how it is relevant... In the real world, the closest equivalent would be slamming a book down on the table during a conversation and walking out of the room... You're free to do so, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking it makes you right...

...

You keep talking about denying our nature.
Well, you deny your nature every day... don't you?
You keep avoiding properly addressing this lapse in logic.
Why do you object to people being unnatural selectively?

It seems to me that you should, to avoid being seen as a hypocrite, live up to your own standards of naturalism... not just in situations that suit you, but always... Otherwise, who decides when it is okay to be natural and when it isn't? Can't you turn your criticisms about unnatural dietary choices around and aim them at other aspects of your lifestyle? If not, why not?

I'll ask again: why are you using a computer?



You keep falling back on the same sarcastic stereotypes that don't even have any basis.
As far as conversation goes, it's getting dull... like the second season of a predictable sit-com.
I never said it was wrong to kill... In fact, I said the opposite (more than once).
It isn't fucked up to kill, for survival; It's fucked up to kill for no reason.

so its ok if you have a reason and hunger is a good reason to kill. Did you not imply that if you were hungry enough you would kill a human to sustain yourself?