Vegetarianism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skib

Yes, my statement was quite vague, but I'm pleased that you were able to understand what I was trying to get across about the drastic transition.

After reading the caliber of the rest of your posts, I've decided my intellect is not sufficient to adequately participate with you all on this subject.:( I shall bow out and bid you all good day! (or night)

---

Aw, skib, you are modest, but I think you are very intelligent. You may leave if you wish but we'd love to have you stay. I don't post long posts nowadays, I just try to say what I wish concisely, though I may fail to always communicate clearly.

Anyway you raised a valid point. My own suggestion in response would be something like, reducing the population in a controlled way (this would definitely be feasible as an evolution to vegetarianism could not be but gradual), gradually.

If we control the numbers of animals - "we," such a big call for quotations - then it is not difficult for us also to diminish those numbers, by not breeding them. It does not seem to be a potent argument to me to say "we bred these animals, so we must eat them." In fact I see no limitation on our ability to decrease their numbers. If we did not breed them at all they would cease to exist in a generation. I am not saying we should act so to make them cease to exist, but merely point this out to show our ability to act with a free hand there.

And also as mono says, we can live in harmony with the animals. Cows are sacred in India and much revered, as are elephants. As Becca said, why are some animals such as dogs and cats considered pets, loved, part of the family, while others are not? In fact pigs are smarter than dogs. Dogs are pack animals and so they naturally fit in perfectly with our families, but pigs are certainly able to learn a great deal as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skib

After reading the caliber of the rest of your posts, I've decided my intellect is not sufficient to adequately participate with you all on this subject.:( I shall bow out and bid you all good day! (or night)

---

Oh, do not say such things, skib, and I hope reading others' posts never impede you from posting your thoughts - modesty can appear as such a curse!
Even as a newer member, I think it easy to perceive your obvious intelligence, and this forum's purpose proves to discuss things - why cannot we discuss things well by not refusing to barricade ourselves due to the intimidation of others? Fear not, friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grotto

All that lives is born to die. That includes bean sprouts, carrots and things with cute little eyes. Only humans give special preferences to certain forms of life.

---

This is not philosophically sound either. It means absolutely nothing upon our relative morals to say that all is relavitive. I am not sure if this is what you meant but it's what I took from your post. You said, "all that lives is born to die," as a justification for living beings whose only fault is not being human. This just doesn't hold up for me, it is meaningless. It is true that after the animal dies, its suffering is ended, and it may not know of it anymore. But this is also true of humans - would you say therefore it is okay to kill humans because all is born to die? Absolutely not.

---

Interesting points, NikolaiI, as always. :nod:
This borders an entire discussion in itself, as to the "purpose of life," but I agree all life eventually leads to death; perhaps, however, the statement "all that lives is born to die" implies that every beginning has no real intrinsic value other than its end - there must subsist something between a beginning and end that bears some value. Whether these values end up obsolete during and following death, again, seems another long discussion in itself. This alludes to my former thoughts that certain animals own the sole purpose of ending up as food, or producing something for human consumption, such as dairy cows giving us milk to drink, or chickens laying eggs for us to eat.
Biology seems an immense grandeur of study, among it the study of the cycles of life. A heifer gives birth to a calf, then the calf grows, feeding off of his mother's utters; later, it feeds off grass, oats, water, and alfalfa. Quite possibly, later in life, following maturation (sometimes not the case, such as in the production of Kobe beef), the grown calf or cow will get slaughtered for its beef. Its bred "purpose" may have seemed for human consumption, but it served so much more, such as in the biological cycle; without that one cow, the field would have come that much closer to ending up overgrown, the oat and alfalfa fields and products rotted. Even an elementary animation shows other functions of animals some humans consider food in the nitrogen cycle:

http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/nitrogen-cycle.gif

Besides the point, and, once again, this borders a debate for the "meaning of life," but, while not trying to delve too strongly into animal right's advocacy, who do we seem to determine and judge the purpose of a life, and deem when it appears "necessary" to slaughter it and call it food? Do political, philosophical, and religious texts tell or command us to act that way? As we call ourselves a superior species in the world, does this seem so because we have learned how to control other species to the point of having the ability to breed them when we desire, slaughter them when we desire, contain them how we desire, and consume them when we desire?

No problem NikolaiI, my statement wasn’t meant to persuade or to challenge anyone’s morals, I was stating an opinion, same as you. You may argue until your blue in the face, I have nothing to gain, I don’t know all of the answers and arguing won’t help, I won’t argue.

My only point is, nature makes no distinction and does not use morals; it has gone on for millions of years without our help and people now arguing about the quality of life of domestic turkeys is, how should I say, a rather simplistic dialogue. As if some how we all of a sudden know what life is and how it should be cared for while at the same time having to eat of life it self. I am better than you because I don’t kill things with cute eyes! No! I’m better because I won’t eat things that produce eggs! The rationales are ludicrous! Is not a seed an egg?

I come from European ancestry where my parents had to scrounge food during the war. My grandfather would go out at night and steal what he could so they could eat. To this day, my mother won’t eat soup, because when it was all over, she found out what was in the soup. I grew up on a farm, I have watched my dinner being killed two hour before it was cooked and I have butchered my self. I have always had gardens and I have also hunted in the past. There are many of us that know far more about nature than middle-class suburbia does while they sit around a Starbucks deciding the fate of the world as long as the answers they come up with don’t inconvenience them selves. Most people who I have met who are adamant vegetarians have no concept on where their food comes from. To them, it’s wrapped in plastic or in some other form of Styrofoam in a well lit store with music playing in the back ground. They have no idea what it takes to produce their food yet they somehow seem to think they know all of the worlds food answers. Armchair nature lovers, spoiled little brats with nothing else in their life to do but tell others how to live. Oh yeah, I forgot! That’s how religions are started, of course, then the wars start, and yes, death. An army doesn’t live on carrots alone. hehe


You also say that at death comes the end of suffering, may I ask how you know this? Again, a belief you blindly believe because it makes sense but there has been no further questioning on your part, you take it for truth because it fits your ideal. Always question the ideal.

Would I say it is ok to kill humans because all that lives is born to die you ask? Would you like to think about that for a moment? Everything you have, every right you have gained and the freedom you now have to speak your mind has all come from the killing of those who you some how think shouldn’t die. Sorry, can’t have one with out the other. It isn’t just death from the past and you can now say that my current gains have no blood on them, it happens constantly, it’s happening today. What makes us better than turkey or lions?

One never knows what one will eat when they are hungry enough. How far would you go to stay alive? There is where you will find your answer, fortunately, few of us will ever need to answer that question. There are cultures however who have to answer that question every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Even an elementary animation shows other functions of animals some humans consider food in the nitrogen cycle:

---

I didn't get your picture.

[revised]

In response to you, grotto, I find not much to say. You say you do not wish to argue yet your post assumes a very argumentative tone. Your exclamatory statements in your second paragraph serve nothing more than to indict vegetarians of self-rightouesness. However, as neither I, nor anyone on this forum, has said they are better than others because they are vegetarian, it is a bit sarcastic and juvenile, benefiting no one and lacking value in a philosophical debate.

And again, your statement that nature has no morals appears to me as being quite meaningless to our current debate. That has equal value in arguing that it is okay to kill humans or something like this. And your response that each of us here or... whatever - should feel guilty because our computers, clothes, and all the food is brought in an enconomy which, because all things are connected, is partly responsible for the suffering of humans is - I cannot really think of a good word for it, God forgive me; but it is not very wonderful. Please raise the standard of your argument. There is no reason to be negative in that way and insult people and say they go to Starbucks, though, even though I have not been to in many months, and less than 2 or 3 times in my life, this being the case, do not regard as a carnal sin.

Arguing that your opponents - vegetarians - are shallow, thoughtless, and hypocritical for vague reasons, for any reasons, is ad hominem.

Not trying to be harsh, just trying to underline the issues I have with your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

I didn't get your picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Even an elementary animation shows other functions of animals some humans consider food in the nitrogen cycle:

---

---

Ugh, technology fails me again - damn blind links. Thanks for pointing that out, NikolaiI. ;) I will try another one:

http://www.h2ou.com/h2images/NitrogenCycle-lgr-F.jpg

Once again, and this borders another whole subject, it seems impossible for us and from our standpoint to judge complete purposes of all life, including ourselves. The nitrogen cycle, for one example, demonstrates that even a common element we breathe (as we breathe more nitrogen than oxygen; without it, which human lung surfactant requires nitrogen, we could end up with atelectasis) relies heavily upon something as simple as bacteria, plant matter, and animal waste. This simple analogy makes me conclude that not only can we unjustly deem an animal's existence, breed them, slaughter them, etc. according to a time we see fit, but that animal's existence, beyond our intentions, serves more purposes, contributing that much more collectiveness.

Sorry NikolaiI, I have no need to raise the bar, if an argument for or against a specific ideal is to be raised, all sides and opinions need to be heard before anyone passes final judgment.

I never claimed vegetarians are self righteous, or meat eaters for that fact, only those that try to convince without having all of the facts, or have there own agenda to push, closed minded I might add.

I don’t feel anything I said was meaningless, same as you. In any debate where life is involved, you can’t compartmentalize it into a convenient every body feel good topic. Every debate has an ugly side.

By the way, I frequent Starbucks too!

You had a motive when you started this topic;

“My goal is simply to encourage people to become or at least think about becoming vegetarian.”

Ok, I hear you, but you went at with cute quotes from famous people who agree with your opinion. Again, fair enough. You did however leave out some of the quote on one of your famous people, he had added at the end, “while I think it would be ideal, I can’t help but liking my leather belt and shoes.”

I don’t think there is anything wrong with anyone’s personal decision to do anything, be it vegetarianism or religion; it’s when it’s put on a moral high ground that I will speak up. I’m doing this because I think its right and you should too! But when you start questioning them as to why, how and what will the short and long term effects be to a world economy, other countries, cultures and religious beliefs? they have no answers besides, “I think it’s right”. Ok, for you it’s right, and I respect your decision.

As you said, so God help me, well, some one then has to play the devils advocate. There are no easy answers, ever decision has a cause and effect. I apologize if I sounded like I was aggressive, I can assure you I wasn’t, just pointing a few things out when the moral majority starts to amass.

I will leave this topic now.

I've decided to try vegetarianism for a lil bit. See how i feel

Thank you all for now letting me downplay myself like that! I usually tend to shy away from discussing touchy subjects, but if you insist on my participation, I shall voice my opinion:

I was raised as a hunter and cattleman. My grandfather started me hunting when I was very young. I was raised harvesting and processing all my own meat. I herd beef cattle from time to time, and the question of vegetarianism was not raised until I was in high-school. I had heard of it, but in my blessed ignorance of youth, I dismissed it as a digestive disorder, not a lifestyle. I did not know any open vegetarians until I was a junior in high school, yet I never understood the motives. I am a meat eater by nature- obviously, and I never attempted to make the switch. I have noticed though, that on the rare occasion, if I eat more greens (the extent of my vegetable diet being leafy greens and carrots) that my energy level dropped significantly. Granted, this is not a legitimate source of many necessary nutrients, but after I realized this, my diet tends to consist of more animal proteins and less vegetables. In the lines of work I tend to gravitate towards, protein is a very necessary staple.
I have no issue with vegetarians (as long as they do not attempt to influence my choices) and I think Nikolai, you did a wonderful job putting your point of view out there without stepping on anybody's toes. I read this entire thread at one point in time, and I see that you have made a very well-thought out decision.

Well, Skib, I sort of chanced into vegetarianism. As I child I didn't eat meat because I didn't like the taste. In America 95% of the population eats meat. As I grew up, I sort of gradually adopted moral reasons for vegetarianism. The two did sort of evolve together. I wasn't strictly a vegetarian for all of my life, though for most of it I was, again simply by preference. It's only now in my life that it is very simple and very clear for me. The question of morality of the rights of animals is not whether or not they can reason or talk, but whether they can suffer. I cannot find a single reason to think it's morally alright to consider animals as food. Not for the reason that 95% of the population of America does it, nor for the reason that they cannot talk or reason. Not if it is unnecessary. If I were stranded in nature I would likely attempt to eat some animal. But as it is for me, I am not so I don't. Also, it doesn't seem to me to be an escapable justification to say that killing them painlessly is okay as it doesn't cause them suffering. First, factory farms do cause a great number of ways of suffering, and second, it is just a nonsensical argument. It doesn't work for humans, and for me, it doesn't work for animals.

Having said all that, I am not trying to put guilt on you or indicate I judge you or anyone else. I am somewhat like mono in this regard. For another reason I am not in a place to judge, and for another reason, I don't want anyone to feel bad. I am merely presenting my philosophical basis of vegetarianism - which is, I don't have the right to take the life of an animal if it is unnecessary. And for me it is unnecessary. I am an active person and in the best health of my life. If you were so inclined and motivated, you would likely be able to continue the types of work you wish on a vegetarian diet. One of the statistics TheDave posted was that Dave Scott, a vegetarian, won the Ironman Triathlete competition six times.

I happen to be on the flip side of the coin- I dislike the taste of most vegetables. As a child, I ate very, very few. I have no basis beyond that for not eating many of them. It's a miracle my mother managed to get me to eat the ones I do today.

I love vegetables, and when as a child I had to go to the ranch or one of my cousin's farms to stay for a while in the summer before rejoining my parents in extensive travel,I only ate that with grains.
I was horrified watching the bulls get dehorned or what ever that was, prairie oysters, that made me scream. I could not bear to see the men put a chicken's head on the ground and then step on the neck and then rip and the chicken would run headless for a moment or two. ONce I managed to hide about fifty up a tree and I got the strap for it.And my cousins all belonged to the 4H club and raised calves, then sold them at auction. Being a ballerina city girl without a clue to how the world outside of huge department stores and fine restaurants obtained their wares, I was a wreck each fall when I returned home.
So I became vegetarian and was totally razzed by my whole family who could eat a steak the size of the table and then go back for more. I did this for years and one day I became ill with something or other and in the process I of course had blood taken.
The doctor ordered me to eat meat, he said I had way way too few red cells and they were small, not the right size.
It was hard, for the humanitarian thing. The truth is though I recovered quickly after that and I did like the taste of meat.
Now I eat a ton of veggies with a little bit of chicken or once in a while read meat. Mostly fish though. It is life.

I eat everything but mammals. I feel like this is the most defensible (rationally justified) position.

My idea is that mammals have the cognitive capacity sufficient to be morally significant. I don't believe in the inherent value of life, and even if I did, I would be committed to the claim that eating carrots is just as wrong as eating shrimp (I think - if we're jettisoning ideas of cognition). Full on vegetarianism cannot, I think, be justified, and neither can meat-eating. So I eat chicken, because that's where I draw the cognitive line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterInteger

I eat everything but mammals. I feel like this is the most defensible (rationally justified) position.

My idea is that mammals have the cognitive capacity sufficient to be morally significant. I don't believe in the inherent value of life, and even if I did, I would be committed to the claim that eating carrots is just as wrong as eating shrimp (I think - if we're jettisoning ideas of cognition). Full on vegetarianism cannot, I think, be justified, and neither can meat-eating. So I eat chicken, because that's where I draw the cognitive line.

---

I respect your thoughts on consistency. It seems that you've thought things through well.

I eat wild salmon (not farm raised), and that's it for me. I just don't like the taste of meat, and I don't think meat is very healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterInteger

I eat everything but mammals. I feel like this is the most defensible (rationally justified) position.

My idea is that mammals have the cognitive capacity sufficient to be morally significant. I don't believe in the inherent value of life, and even if I did, I would be committed to the claim that eating carrots is just as wrong as eating shrimp (I think - if we're jettisoning ideas of cognition). Full on vegetarianism cannot, I think, be justified, and neither can meat-eating. So I eat chicken, because that's where I draw the cognitive line.

---

I wonder why do you say vegetarianism cannot be justified?