Vegetarian or No? - Page 4

quote:

---

Be warned, I'm not an obedient student

---

Tsk, tsk, what a challenge you present!

(Observe the beast rolling back and presenting his large exposed belly, for scratching?)

And it makes me lol, particularly when remembering how you propositioned our delectable Decius by pointing out your…erm,.. very large size!

And this erection of your 'rod-of-iron' for the admiration of all, but most especially I suspect, Decius (combined with your obviously masochistic point of view) has you pegged. Come out with it man!

(The snapping and snarling at girls isn't going to bring you the ultimate satisfaction that you truly desire).

quote:

---

Piece of piss. I can work it out, yes, I just don't choose to use it as I know I tend to write reams and reams of text and the spacing makes it seem longer. I've really only been trying to make my points as readable as possible

---

Clever boy!

And now for the tip of the day (seeing as you did request ‘new tricks'):

That ‘army of little white ants' which seems to be forever marching across your lengthy posts (when you have become quite carried away with yourself) tends to make one want to scroll on by.

In a word?… Brevity!

But if your lofty ideas cannot be contained by brevity, then the quote thing (which you choose not to use) will offer the eye a welcome resting place, until the next squadron of ‘ants' trudges by.

@ "the beast": maybe I am being entirely closed minded about the issue, but I still stand by what I say. I agree that there is logic in being a vegetarian (and possibly vegan, though fruitarians I would still consider as more than a little strange). As for biological design to eat meat or beat people up who come onto you territory, there is a difference in the fact that I'm talking teeth and stomach design rather than primal instinct. As for being unable to grow crops on a field every year, this is without the use of fertilisers (either chemical, or also commonly biomass from someone else's animals).

@ Decius: I would still have some disagreement over the actual logic in the economic arguments presented. to start with may I enquire as to exactly how your petrol powered cows work? I have yet to see fossil fuels power a cow, there is some needed in their transport obviously (but the same with the grain) and maybe to produce the food for them to eat in the winter, but consider the other produce made by the cow, all the meat, plus any other materials that could be used from them (once again economy not morality here). You are also failing to consider that ending the meat industry would put several hundred thousand people (probably more) out of work, as well as putting an end to all household dogs and cats (as they cannot healthily eat a vegetarian diet). There is also the economic (or I suppose more capitalist) point of view of the farmers, which is that they make more profit from selling meat than crops, if meat was no longer required, many farms would go under because they were no longer financially viable enterprises.

As for the water (and other necessities of the animals life) "wasted" unless as I previously suggested these animals became extinct they would still be there to need them we just wouldn't get the food from them that we currently do. The moral repugnance of suggesting destroying large portions of several species to allow water to be wasted by the swimming pools and jacuzzis of the western world instead of drunk by animals astounds me. Australia lacks clean freshwater but the majority of households have a swimming pool, I know where I'd be looking to make cuts.

I worry about what you feed your cows that makes their shit pollutant. if fed on grass and normal crops then they provide a perfectly healthy manure for growing other crops (or as use as biofuel)

As for cutting the meat intake by half to feed the third world, it probably would also us to produce enough food to meet the needs of the third world. The only problem remaining would then be the fact that it would rot along with the rest of our stockpile as we waited for them to buy it off us. And even we could be persuaded to hand over the necessary food, we only need to cut our intake of meat by an 8th to solve the problem, not a strong argument for giving it up completely. Your arguments are (mostly) logical but their morality is misplaced.

If you want to talk about the decadence of eating meat then find someone who lives close to you so that you don't waste energy over the internet or powering the server that hosts this site, ride a bike or walk instead of a car or public transport, grow produce in your back garden so no fuel is needed to mass produce it, then come back and tell me that meat is a sinful decadence (or rather wait for me to be decadent and fly over to America then tell me).

In my view after what I've said in return to your points, that would leave us with only an argument about the relative morality of actually eating the animals. You have said that we are no better than them, but then if we are no better than the other animals that live off meat, and do you expect other carnivorous or omnivorous animals to become vegetarian? Any answer other than yes is hypocritical, if we are no higher than these animals then acting like we are is acting above our station. The other question (I will admit to this being a bit of a ridiculous argument but you feel that this entire post is, so I'm sure you'll forgive me this one) is what is the fundamental difference between a plant and an animal, both have life?

quote:

---

Of course none of this matters. The world is going to shit. Vegetarianism and the absolutely clarity of how stupid it is to be a meat eater is a no-brainer. There is no question, whatsoever, about its validity. But there is no question about lots of things nowadays that mentally deficient Americans choose to ignore.

---

It worries me that an argument with such obvious holes has your wholehearted and unquestioning support, especially with the zealotry displayed by that statement.

Gentlemen, please!

Decius, I like the way that Cynic-Al questions everything put before him. Obviously I side with you with regard to the points you made (they were all new to me!), but his perspective unearths little treasures that stimulate my perspective. He's not crazy, he's got a different view and I'm sure that he's open to researching these facts (I know I am, can you cite your sources?) and I'm pretty sure that he'll review his opinion if he finds them to be true? Not the actions of a crazy person really. It's a shame to see the discussion take an ugly turn.

To continue regardless...

The argument from economics, the argument from biology, the argument from evolution etc. are all fascinating diversions from the real subject at hand -- the argument from morality. My opinions differ greatly from all the animal rights crowd and most of the other veggies I know. To be clear, here is what I deduce:

Animals, including the human animal, are not equal. They are blatantly different across species and within species. We should respect and celebrate these differences. Any argument proclaiming equality, I feel falls at the first hurdle (and is why the "V movement", if I can call it that, is not taken seriously). Humans have a fabulous difference in that they (currently) have the greatest cognitive ability that can make them, if they so choose, (and they do) to be at the top of a naturally occurring 'pecking order' system. Our cognitive abilities enable us to live outside and beyond the boundaries of the 'pecking order' system. We have an ideal of something better, "civility". Every single human barring the incapable or the insane aspires to live in a civilised world. Infractions caused by people acting from the old pecking order book, are frowned upon (shall I understate) depending on the violation in question. All I ask is that we choose to read from the one book wherever possible. Being civilised and not exploiting our animal cohabitant friends will make us good, non-hypocritical custodians of our planet and not the self-serving tyrants of it. And again, I temper all of this with my usual caveat of being civilised wherever possible, but when you have no choice, in the face of true survival, do what you have to do.

As much as some might fear it, or fear the change, being vegetarian really wont kill you, honest! In fact, there's an awful lot of good evidence that it will really do us all an awful lot of good. What's the problem with that?

The Beast
MG

p.s. Does anyone else have a problem with my 'quote thing'? I'll reformat my posts in future if Chiron is not the only one.

So decius would you say that there is no humane way to kill the animal for food as from what little you bothered to refute any point I made that is all you have actually said? My opinions of how the animals are treated come from my experience helping on the farm that my uncles run. The cows there are treated humanely. Their life is spent in a field eating grass, or in a barn eating turnips and grain. Sheep probably undergo the most suffering being shorn, yet I doubt you would complain as much about a woollen jumper as my dinner. Animals are also unconscious while killed (unless halal meat, which I would agree is a barbaric way of killing an animal) so what torture they undergo I am unsure, it is just sedation and then death, they feel nothing more than if they were put down like an injured pet.

All animals like that were bred to be slaughtered by nature, your only point is that we formalised the process. We are also the most humane of their predators, if you thinking being packed into a lorry, then stunned is inhumane imagine being chased and hamstrung by a pack of dogs that then proceed to eat you without bothering to make sure that you are fully dead.

I never overlooked the fact that the animals are slaughtered, but if you would be so kind as to tell me what torture they undergo?

I presume by presented statistics you mean the amount of fuel used to produce the meat, as only that and the amount of water they drink were statistics you quoted and I denied neither of them, I only attempted to question where the fuel went. As for the amount of water, I still stand by the fact that there are plenty of other less worthwhile uses of water than for a cow to drink. Your comments about the manure I would be interested to see the source for because everywhere I have found and all my experience has thrown up only that "fresh" chicken waste is bad for the soil, every other source is stated as a good fertiliser.

I have still yet to be given anything I would accept as your perfectly logical and open minded arguments, I have accepted what you say is true, your statistics I hold in high esteem. I agree that there is no reason not to be a vegetarian, but the moral argument for why to be is the only one that holds any close inspection, and it is purely a case of the fact that we kill to eat, and yes it is a decision whether or not to, but that is the same for many animals that are omnivorous, they can choose not to eat meat, but often it is a convenient source of food.

If you still totally disagree with me, instead of screaming about a lack of logic point it out, not just general statements, but actual specific points.

quote:

---

Decius: Hence, you do everyone a disservice by trying to incorrectly describe this behaviour as somehow being genuine.

---

I'm getting a lot of bollockings just recently. I just want everyone to play nice, that's all.

quote:

---

Cynic-Al: I agree that there is no reason not to be a vegetarian, but the moral argument for why to be is the only one that holds any close inspection.

---

I think it's as open-and-shut a case as the argument from economics, but I'm really glad you said that because that's where I'd prefer to debate the issue. See my previous post.

quote:

---

Cynic-Al: but that is the same for many animals that are omnivorous, they can choose not to eat meat, but often it is a convenient source of food.

---

I would like to point out that omnivorous animals do not really exercise a power of informed choice and kill out of perceived necessity, i.e. “survival”. See my previous post.

Chiron: There ya go, all quoted up as you like it. Democracy won out in the end and I changed my formatting protocols for you. All because you tickled my belly. Now would you care to join in the debate or is there something else that I do that winds you up? Be kind.

MG

Decius, I disagree with actually relatively little (except for the actual issue of eating meat) that you have said. We do eat too much meat, and it does cause problems, but it is not the sole cause of the problems you have quoted. There is very little actually new on any of the pages you gave me to read, the only thing I actually asked for your reading on was what made the waste poisonous (to which I think one source had a single line). But your conclusion from the facts is still too strong to be fully supported by the evidence provided.

From one of the sites you linked

quote:

---

Even now, we are already producing enough food for everyone on the planet, but unfortunately it is being allocated inefficiently.

---

In my opinion that entirely nullifies the argument about the third world (with respect to our meat production), changing our eating habits will do nothing to help them. We actually have to bite the bullet and actually hand some of the food over (rather than as I said previously watching it rot in our own stores). (pray tell me how this is illogical?)

quote:

---

While it is true that many animals graze on land that would be unsuitable for cultivation, the demand for meat has taken millions of productive acres away from farm inventories.

---

I would agree that we should eat less meat, but I don't believe that stopping eating them is necessary (I'll come onto morals later). It would be economically and environmentally viable for us to go back to eating locally produced meat, the way my uncles raise their sheep and cattle is in a field eating the grass that is there or fed on a portion of the crops produced, this means little pollution due to transport, as they are walked between the fields, and all of their fodder is produced on site (I realise that this was a limited image to base my argument on, having a knowledge of factory farming's existence, but preoccupation with other things got the better of me).

If we cut out the practice of factory farming, that limits a fairly high percentage of the environmental damage from waste pollution and fossil fuel use (especially if we stop importing animal feed). The majority of the literature provided there describes factory farming as almost the sole cause of these problems, a return to the "19th century family farm" would solve the majority of the problems. The horrendous practices in the meat industry that need to be stopped, are centred on factory farming, so the argument really only warrants the shutting down of factory farms, not the whole industry. The majority of the pollutant waste is also produced by factory farms, and they are also responsible for the mass importation of cheap soya feed etc. Stopping factory farming would require that the meat output be limited by a quite high factor, but that is not a problem, an omnivorous diet should be mainly plant based. This lowering of the output would then serve to free up large portions of the land required to produce crops for humans, as well as using far less water, without necessitating the extinction of about 20 different species (there being assorted different breeds of each farm animal).

A return to previous farming practices would also make the meat produced better for us, lessening the amount of saturated fat, and putting less chemicals into the animals bloodstream because they are no longer in close confinement and don't need to be drugged up.

That is all I have ever been trying to say, perhaps my previous two posts used sweeping generalisations, but I still maintain that there was some genuine intent in my questions however badly worded.

So, if we are now running a humane meat industry where the farms feed their livestock on grass and their some a portion of their own (or locally produced) crops. And which has a produce output of maybe a half or a third of its current output, then we have come to a conclusion that is supported by our facts. I hope that I have managed to more clearly and logically organise my opinion, and better explain what I was trying to get at.

Just out of interest are you vegetarian or vegan? And if the former do you eat fish?

This now leaves us with the moral case for eating meat, purely on the basis of whether we should kill to eat. As you have said in your last post, we have to kill to eat, be it plant, animal, fish or fowl. Your case is that we should eat the least intelligent lifeform available, but why should something's intelligence so radically change the way we treat it?

Just quickly as an aside I think your reaction was a bit severe, while my post was over general in what I disagreed with, your reply was an ad hominum attack that you have still yet to fully finish pursuing. With regards to the links provided I am perfectly capable of doing the same myself, though I will admit to having failed to consider battery farming in regards to the torture of animals. Though you did actually ignore what I was asking of you when I asked about your sources. On the subject of being argumentative though, I feel I must apologise on that score, because quite frankly I was, I was frustrated and the little things that I disagreed with in your arguments gave me a target which I was depressingly clumsy in attempting to point out. Ok after about the 14th edit I think I have got this saying what I want it to say in the best terms. Once again I request that if you have anything you disagree with you tell me exactly what it is you disagree with and I will try to further explain my point of view.

Just a little light reasearch for all concerned:

http://www.peekvid.com/video/1195/17096/07x05---Lisa-the-Vegetarian.html


MG

Surely it should have been pink floyd with the flying pig over the factoy (see Pink Floyd - Animals) lol. The bias in that episode does make me laugh though, as I am still used to seeing animals raised in more humane conditions.

I still see where you are coming from, a lot of the meat industry's practices are wrong. However my insanity or some other cause still prevents me from seeing any moral dilemma in eating animals like the omnivores we are. (as long as their are humanely treated in their keeping). Maybe some day something will change my views on that, but I don't see it being hugely likely any time soon.

I am still waiting for some reply from Decius, unless he has entirely left in disgust.

ok, disregarding all previous arguments and wandering on to more practical matters, does anyone know any good vegetarian meals I can make, because as I said I want to cut down my meat intake. This is partially in response to this topic, ad partially because meat is quite expensive, so I want to try and find some cheaper meals to live off while I'm a student.

nope, I'm somewhat limited in cooking apparatus as I'm in a hall of residence, we have a bog standard oven and hobs and a microwave, though I could probably borrow my friends rice cooker if I asked

Sorry I've been busy and haven't been able to visit this thread as often as I'd like, but it's really been brewing with some juicy stuff!

Cynic-Al,

I've read through all your posts and I'm eager to interject my humble opinion on some issues.

[qoute]"-but the moral argument for why to be is the only one that holds any close inspection" and "This now leaves us with the moral case for eating meat, purely on the basis of whether we should kill to eat."[/qoute]

Fantastic! I agree, close inspection of the moral argument is (for me) the seed of it all, for without this fundament of decision-making in an individual the whole subject is moot.

[qoute]"As you [Decius] have said in your last post, we have to kill to eat, be it plant, animal, fish or fowl. Your [Decius'] case is that we should eat the least intelligent life form available, but why should something's intelligence so radically change the way we treat it?"[/qoute]

Why should your intelligence so radically change the way I treat you? Why should I even consider it if I were the next Hitler and had it in for you? (metaphorically speaking, I hold you in high regard!) Why should I be bothered about you as a human if I were coming to attack/abuse you assuming I were able to and/or superior to you? Because your intelligence includes self awareness and the capability of feeling emotions including pain and these things matter to you so they should be considered when you choose your victims. But if 'you have to', if it is a matter of 'do-or-die', or 'true survival', then do the least damage as possible.

So, for example, I hand you a weapon, a knife, and I present you a line of edible organisms ranging from left to right, the simplest of foods, fungi, rice, carrots, soya beans and peas, all the way through to organisms capable of feeling pain such as prawns, fish, chickens, pigs, cows, sharks, dogs and humans (and the humans ranging from unborn babies, through retarded adults to Einsteinion genii) then where does one cut the line? And if I usher you out of the room and say, "There, there old chap, don't you worry about the actual killing part, I'll do it for you, you just tell me where to start cutting" will that effect your perceived line of acceptability? Dare you go a little further along the chain seeing as now you won't have to actually do any 'dirty work' yourself? You see my point? If you have to kill to eat, do the least damage (this is where I slightly differ from Decius' point in that I don't necessarily base it only on intelligence, but I am splitting hairs). This analogy is more acute if I were to reduce your choice to a mere three selections, a baby, a retard or a healthy adult. Who would you kill first? You certainly wouldn't not care in this instance would you?

quote:

---

"-because as I said I want to cut down my meat intake".

---

Whatever reason you want to do that I really commend you and guarantee that you'll feel better for it. Any start is a good start in my book!

As for simple vegan/vegetarian recipes, how about thick lentil and tomatoe soup? or a quick vegetable curry with boiled rice? or jacket potatoes and beans! Mushrooms and leaks sautéed in olive oil and then mixed with vegan cream cheese and pasta! ooh, a banana sandwich! ooh oooh mushrooms on toast! Heck, I've made myself hungry now!

MG