Vegetarians

[Alice]

What you're describing, so far, is just anything that is aware of its surroundings (which, I might add, includes my webcam).

No it doesn't. It can see (kinda) but it's not aware.

Though, I should mention that I wasn't saying that they're not alive, as Vendak was. Just that their feelings aren't comparable to animals' feelings.

 

[Nick]

For a while, I've been an on-again off-again vegetarian, who would add fish and drop fish to my diet simply because upholding a vegetarian lifestyle is rather difficult when you don't have your own stable source of income and the primary source of income is from someone who views my vegetarianism as "being picky" and who I view to be ignorant, but I've been a vegetarian in full for about two months now... maybe less, I can't be bothered to get the exact timeframe. I intend once I get my own income to go vegan.

Why am I a vegetarian? For four reasons:
a. I've become much healthier since I eliminated meat from my diet. You can say what you want about lack of protein and all that preaching, but those are mostly the people who haven't tried vegetarianism properly who have that misconception.
b. I don't believe an animal has to die in a slaughterhouse to feed me or anybody else. I should, however, state that while I don't agree with hunting animal on a dinner-per-night basis with you, yourself and nature, I don't make a fuss about it and I respect it much more than people who support the mass murder of animals in slaughterhouses. I also believe that if slaughterhouses were made of glass walls, most people would choose to eliminate meat from their diet.
c. Just looking at meat makes me sick to my stomach, and the thought of tearing the flesh with my teeth disturbs me so much that I can't contemplate doing so.
d. https://www.earthlings.com/

I think the criticizing of vegetarians is absolutely ridiculous and incredibly hypocritical these days, though. I'm absolutely positive that vegetarians experience the same crap that meat eaters complain about vegetarians about from meat eater. People make it a point to point out how people need meat to survive and jab that down the throats of vegetarians just as much as vegetarians, because from every person I've told that I'm a vegetarian, I experience some form of backlash against my choice to be so. Every other vegetarian I know of has similar experiences. It's really a two-way street in that regard, you're just looking at it from one side. I even associate that with those ignorant people who go around asking why people go gay.

Though, I ultimately believe you live your life the way you want to and think what you want about the life you've made, whether you want to eat meat or not. As long as meat eaters don't become preachy and let me eat my baby carrot, I don't have a problem with their choice in alternative lifestyle.

 

[rhycochet]

i don't personally see vegetarian as a healthy way to eat.
it might very well be...i've just never seen truly healthy vegans who aren't supplementing their meals with well, supplements of some sort so they get enough protein, or whatever.

i will probably become a pescatarian, if anything...it seems like a pretty healthy alternative.

 

[Keiran]

I used to be strictly vegan, but now I'm semi-vegetarian. I still pay close attention to how the chickens and cows (only milk) were raised and fed, before I buy the meat/eggs. Preferring the products made from animals who were organically fed (no hormones and such) and died from natural causes, obviously.

I don't think it's immoral eating meat, but I believe it's foolish to eat something that might as well be labeled poison, aka most non-organic products.

 

[Alice]

i will probably become a pescatarian, if anything...it seems like a pretty healthy alternative.

Yeah, if all you're looking for is to eat healthier, Pescatarian is the way to go. Although it's entirely possible to get enough protein and B12 from soy products as a vegetarian.

 

[Yume Tsuki]

I ain't a vegetarian, but I exclude calves, lambs and all kind of those meat from my diet.

 

[Esper]

"Life" and "living," while sharing similar definitions, have subtle differences in how they are used. When the captain in Wall-E says "I don't want to survive. I want to live!" you can't honestly think "What a dumb thing to say. Living and surviving mean the same thing." Yes, I know that example uses the word "survive" but it's similar enough to how "life" and "living" can mean slightly different things, especially when you contrast the two words. It's entirely appropriate to say that while something may have life it does not necessarily always equate to the full and varied meaning of "living."

That isn't to say that animals necessarily enjoy the full meaning of "living" that humans do, but it is probably true to say that they enjoy it far more than plants which lack the level of awareness animals have and the ability to feel pain or pleasure. I don't think many people bother to fully spell out the argument like this, but it's what I think a lot of vegetarians understand already and helps to make up their views.

Is it arbitrary to say that "living" as I have defined it is where one should draw the line? Possibly. Is it any more arbitrary than other viewpoints on what is or is not acceptable when it comes to plants and animals? No.

All that aside, one could argue, as I do, that vegetarianism can be about reducing harm. If one does grant the argument that plants are just as worthy (or unworthy if that's your view) of life as animals, I would counter that by saying that one causes less harm overall by eating only plants instead of eating plants an animals, that it's unfortunate but necessary for our species to survive by eating others though we have it without our power to mitigate the damage we do and so should. Of course I don't put animals and plants on the same level so I don't feel I need to make that argument in the first place.

 

[Timbjerr]

I have nothing but respect for vegetarians and vegans. They're making a stand for animal rights that I would make were it not for the fact that I like cheeseburgers too much. XD

It's when they're to the extreme that they judge me and use lame scare tactics to make me feel guilty about some fried chicken that they're crossing a line. >_>

 

[twocows]

I think the criticizing of vegetarians is absolutely ridiculous and incredibly hypocritical these days, though. I'm absolutely positive that vegetarians experience the same crap that meat eaters complain about vegetarians about from meat eater. People make it a point to point out how people need meat to survive and jab that down the throats of vegetarians just as much as vegetarians, because from every person I've told that I'm a vegetarian, I experience some form of backlash against my choice to be so. Every other vegetarian I know of has similar experiences. It's really a two-way street in that regard, you're just looking at it from one side. I even associate that with those ignorant people who go around asking why people go gay.

I have never, ever met a person who criticized someone for being a vegetarian without being prompted first. I have a number of friends who are vegetarians and, as far as I know, they've never had this problem either. Moreover, I don't criticize people for being vegetarian and I'm pretty much the most anti-animal "rights" person I know. Eat what you want to eat; it's your choice.

I do, however, criticize people for saying that eating meat is morally wrong. Why? Because I eat meat, and that's implying that I'm a bad person. I may have a bit of fun with people sometimes, but I'm never outright malicious and I do try to make things better for people in general (keyword: people).

While I haven't encountered any of them personally (thank goodness), PETA and friends are well known for going up to meat-eaters and outright criticizing them while they're eating. All of my friends, vegetarian or otherwise, agree: people like that are jerks. It's one thing to debate it with people interested in talking about it; it's another to bother people while they're eating with something they likely don't even agree with.

I should, however, state that while I don't agree with hunting animal on a dinner-per-night basis with you, yourself and nature, I don't make a fuss about it and I respect it much more than people who support the mass murder of animals in slaughterhouses. I also believe that if slaughterhouses were made of glass walls, most people would choose to eliminate meat from their diet.

That's entirely irrelevant: of course there are people out there who have problems seeing violent things. That has no bearing on how ethical the meat industry may or may not be. As for calling it "mass murder," that's deliberately creating an appeal to emotion; anybody's going to think "mass murder" is a bad thing. In the sense you're using it, I "mass murder" bacteria every time I go to the bathroom. That doesn't mean I've committed some sort of moral atrocity.

I have nothing but respect for vegetarians and vegans. They're making a stand for animal rights that I would make were it not for the fact that I like cheeseburgers too much. XD

It's when they're to the extreme that they judge me and use lame scare tactics to make me feel guilty about some fried chicken that they're crossing a line. >_>

Animals do not deserve rights any more than plants or bacteria deserve rights.

No it doesn't. It can see (kinda) but it's not aware.

Though, I should mention that I wasn't saying that they're not alive, as Vendak was. Just that their feelings aren't comparable to animals' feelings.

But it has auto-focus, surely it's aware of things!
Being "aware" means nothing. It just means you can sense and interact with things around you. There are any number of arbitrary inventions that could accomplish such a feat. As for "feelings," it's been established that plants do react to perceived "dangers." For instance, the flow of nutrients in their phloem increases, probably to move important things out of an area that may potentially be damaged. I don't see how that's any less "feeling" than an animal reacting to being poked by moving away.

 

[Elite Overlord LeSabre™]

I could never see myself not eating meat, but others' dietary choices are of no concern to me - eat what you like. It's when radicals try to force their choices on me that I start having a problem with it. Fortunately, I haven't run into anybody like that yet.

Heck, unless someone explicitly mentions that they're a vegetarian, I'm not going to even know it. It's not something I ask people about, because I really don't care and I'm not in any position to dictate what someone else eats. Similarly, nobody is in any position to dictate what I eat.

 

[rhycochet]

i have been criticized by a vegan for eating meat before...but most of my friends who are vegetarians would still go with us to wherever we go to eat, and just get a veggie burger or something. pretty much, if you don't b*tch about my food, i won't b*tch about yours :)

 

[Alice]

I do, however, criticize people for saying that eating meat is morally wrong. Why? Because I eat meat, and that's implying that I'm a bad person.

Eating meat is not morally wrong. Raising millions of animals for the sole purpose of being killed for food, and treating them like they have no feeling or emotions, is morally wrong.

But it has auto-focus, surely it's aware of things!
Being "aware" means nothing. It just means you can sense and interact with things around you. There are any number of arbitrary inventions that could accomplish such a feat. As for "feelings," it's been established that plants do react to perceived "dangers." For instance, the flow of nutrients in their phloem increases, probably to move important things out of an area that may potentially be damaged. I don't see how that's any less "feeling" than an animal reacting to being poked by moving away.

Being aware is incredibly important. The difference between your camera and a animal is that the animal can feel fear, pain, and know of it's own death. If you smash your camera with a hammer, it will feel nothing, and know nothing about what happened.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Eating meat is not morally wrong. Raising millions of animals for the sole purpose of being killed for food, and treating them like they have no feeling or emotions, is morally wrong.

I like organic and "ethical" or sustainable farming. A happy cow makes for a tasty cow.

But, I would be more opposed to someone hunting wild animals or keeping them captive, rather than the slaughter of animals solely bred for the purpose of consumption.

 

[Alice]

But, I would be more opposed to someone hunting wild animals or keeping them captive, rather than the slaughter of animals solely bred for the purpose of consumption.

I'm not really sure where I stand on hunting... on one hand, it's taking animals straight out of the wild, and disrupting families/the ecosystem, etc... but on the other hand, those animals got to live their life as they were meant to, and were hunted by a predator, which is how nature is meant to work.

Overall, I think I would support hunting over slaughterhouses, as long as you use everything that you kill, and aren't doing it purely for sport.

 

[Overlord Drakow]

I am not a vegetarian. I could see myself being one if I had to though. The thing is, I can eat pretty much anything reasonably edible. I don't really care about what kind of restrictions or whatever other people have with their eating habits. I mean, why would I? It doesn't affect me in anyway whatsoever.

 

[Nick]

That's entirely irrelevant: of course there are people out there who have problems seeing violent things. That has no bearing on how ethical the meat industry may or may not be. As for calling it "mass murder," that's deliberately creating an appeal to emotion; anybody's going to think "mass murder" is a bad thing. In the sense you're using it, I "mass murder" bacteria every time I go to the bathroom. That doesn't mean I've committed some sort of moral atrocity.

That may be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me. It's one of the reasons why I became a vegetarian. Your morals are obviously different from mine. Eating meat is against my morals, but I believe that people should do what they please so long as it doesn't sacrifice their own, so I don't think people who eat meat are bad people. They just have different morals than me. If you don't think it's morally wrong to consume meat, good for you, but to argue the fact that what they're doing is indeed mass murder seems a bit silly to me. They're gathering a mass number of animals together for the sole purpose of killing them for mass production and distribution, for profits.

 

[Livewire]

Animals eat other animals for food. We eat cows. They die. We live. Wolves eat cute little baby rabbits. It's the circle of life and the food chain. A Fundamental law of life on this planet. Not much to discuss.

 

[twocows]

"Life" and "living," while sharing similar definitions, have subtle differences in how they are used. When the captain in Wall-E says "I don't want to survive. I want to live!" you can't honestly think "What a dumb thing to say. Living and surviving mean the same thing." Yes, I know that example uses the word "survive" but it's similar enough to how "life" and "living" can mean slightly different things, especially when you contrast the two words. It's entirely appropriate to say that while something may have life it does not necessarily always equate to the full and varied meaning of "living."

That isn't to say that animals necessarily enjoy the full meaning of "living" that humans do, but it is probably true to say that they enjoy it far more than plants which lack the level of awareness animals have and the ability to feel pain or pleasure. I don't think many people bother to fully spell out the argument like this, but it's what I think a lot of vegetarians understand already and helps to make up their views.

Is it arbitrary to say that "living" as I have defined it is where one should draw the line? Possibly. Is it any more arbitrary than other viewpoints on what is or is not acceptable when it comes to plants and animals? No.

All that aside, one could argue, as I do, that vegetarianism can be about reducing harm. If one does grant the argument that plants are just as worthy (or unworthy if that's your view) of life as animals, I would counter that by saying that one causes less harm overall by eating only plants instead of eating plants an animals, that it's unfortunate but necessary for our species to survive by eating others though we have it without our power to mitigate the damage we do and so should. Of course I don't put animals and plants on the same level so I don't feel I need to make that argument in the first place.

Sure, I suppose I'll concede that life can be taken to mean "live life to its fullest," more or less. However, I disagree with the notion that animals "enjoy life" at all. They merely "are." They have no purpose other than to obey their instincts.

As for "decreasing harm," at least that's one way to measure morality (albeit a strictly utilitarian way). However, I don't think that eating meat is any more harmful to people than eating plants is (and people are the only ones who matter with respect to morality in my book, unless another species with similar capacities to our own is found).

Eating meat is not morally wrong. Raising millions of animals for the sole purpose of being killed for food, and treating them like they have no feeling or emotions, is morally wrong.

All right, fair enough. I was arguing a point that wasn't really made. However, I don't really believe raising animals to feed people is morally wrong; for the most part, people aren't harmed in the process, so I don't see much of a problem with it.

Being aware is incredibly important. The difference between your camera and a animal is that the animal can feel fear, pain, and know of it's own death. If you smash your camera with a hammer, it will feel nothing, and know nothing about what happened.

What if I programmed it to recoil when it perceived "danger" and gave it a negative feedback response when it encountered any sort of "destruction?"

The point is, I can give a computer program any number of arbitrary facilities like this. I still wouldn't elevate it above the level of property. What makes people valuable? I've already mentioned a few things that make humans valuable in an earlier post, things that animals lack.

That may be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me. It's one of the reasons why I became a vegetarian. Your morals are obviously different from mine. Eating meat is against my morals, but I believe that people should do what they please so long as it doesn't sacrifice their own, so I don't think people who eat meat are bad people. They just have different morals than me. If you don't think it's morally wrong to consume meat, good for you, but to argue the fact that what they're doing is indeed mass murder seems a bit silly to me. They're gathering a mass number of animals together for the sole purpose of killing them for mass production and distribution, for profits.

I assume you meant "isn't mass murder."

Like I said, I fail to see how "mass murder" can't be applied to the billions of bacteria I kill simply by existing every day. I fought off a cold last week; my T-cells caused the deaths of probably hundreds of thousands of infected cells. What I'm asking is, how exactly are you defining murder? Does any living thing have the capacity to be murdered, or is there some arbitrary group that can be "murdered?" It matters, because "mass murder" is an emotionally charged phrase that can conjure a lot of negative feelings.

Also, I still don't see why the fact that I might be ill from watching the process has any bearing on the ethics of it. There are plenty of things that could make me ill, but I'm pretty sure none of them are morally wrong merely because of that fact.

 

[Nick]

I assume you meant "isn't mass murder."

Like I said, I fail to see how "mass murder" can't be applied to the billions of bacteria I kill simply by existing every day. I fought off a cold last week; my T-cells caused the deaths of probably hundreds of thousands of infected cells. What I'm asking is, how exactly are you defining murder? Does any living thing have the capacity to be murdered, or is there some arbitrary group that can be "murdered?" It matters, because "mass murder" is an emotionally charged phrase that can conjure a lot of negative feelings.

Also, I still don't see why the fact that I might be ill from watching the process has any bearing on the ethics of it. There are plenty of things that could make me ill, but I'm pretty sure none of them are morally wrong merely because of that fact.

To me, murdering is simply premeditated killing. That's not the exact book definition of it, that's how I view it. For the sake of comprehension of others, I should have simply used the word killing, but I didn't intend to come back to this thread after I posted or have someone reply to me, much less read my post at all.

That said, I don't have any problem with the typical picture of a family of a father taking a gun out of the house and finding dinner. While I'm not interested in eating whatever it is he brings home, it's not the act of killing a single animal for food that I have a problem. That's how nature is, I'm not saying that's how it shouldn't be. My problem is simply with the mass killings of animals for mass production and distribution. I don't think it's right to gather a mass number of animals in poor living conditions and stuffing them with chemicals to enhance growth for the purpose of killing them in masses for a profit, and because I don't think it's right, I don't participate in it.

QuilavaKing said what I was trying to say a lot better. Though I don't find it necessary, what I disagree with isn't the act of eating an animal, it's the act of raising millions of animals for the sole purpose of being killed for food, and treating them like they have no feeling or emotions. That's why I differentiated hunting and going to the supermarket and buying a package of meat in my original post. I don't have any problem with hunting, hunting is taking animals straight out the wild: an animal that's lived its life as an animal rather than living it's life to ultimately be shot in the head at a factory, attached to a conveyor belt, and cut open to later be packaged, priced, and sold at a supermarket.

 

[twocows]

To me, murdering is simply premeditated killing. That's not the exact book definition of it, that's how I view it. For the sake of comprehension of others, I should have simply used the word killing, but I didn't intend to come back to this thread after I posted or have someone reply to me, much less read my post at all.

That said, I don't have any problem with the typical picture of a family of a father taking a gun out of the house and finding dinner. While I'm not interested in eating whatever it is he brings home, it's not the act of killing a single animal for food that I have a problem. That's how nature is, I'm not saying that's how it shouldn't be. My problem is simply with the mass killings of animals for mass production and distribution. I don't think it's right to gather a mass number of animals in poor living conditions and stuffing them with chemicals to enhance growth for the purpose of killing them in masses for a profit, and because I don't think it's right, I don't participate in it.

QuilavaKing said what I was trying to say a lot better. Though I don't find it necessary, what I disagree with isn't the act of eating an animal, it's the act of raising millions of animals for the sole purpose of being killed for food, and treating them like they have no feeling or emotions. That's why I differentiated hunting and going to the supermarket and buying a package of meat in my original post. I don't have any problem with hunting, hunting is taking animals straight out the wild: an animal that's lived its life as an animal rather than living it's life to ultimately be shot in the head at a factory, attached to a conveyor belt, and cut open to later be packaged, priced, and sold at a supermarket.

I still don't really see how "premeditated killing" doesn't apply to non-animal species, but I won't belabor the point.

As for what he said, I guess that's whatever it is. I personally don't have a problem with it because I only truly value humans, but as long as you're not demonizing me personally for eating meat, it's not too big of a deal.