Why do some vegetarians/Vegans think...

[lovejunkie02]

I was raised on a dairy farm, and I know damn well that those cows had a pretty good life. We, the farm workers, busted our guts in work to make sure the fields grew thick, juicy green grass for them. We removed any toxic weeds from the fields that might harm them, and carefully planted grass seeds of the varieties that were most nourishing, fertilising the fields to keep it growing well.

 

We fed them hay and silage in winter when the feed was poor, and worked really hard in summer to prepare that hay and silage. Any sick cow, and the vet was called.

 

I often felt that the cows had a better life than we humans did.

 

i'm glad to hear it. you own them, you have a responsibility to take care of them, at the very least.

[Reaper]

you say that and then offer no proof of its truth. and what about the rest of the animals? chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc.

 

Do you want me to list specific examples? Why don't you go look at a farm, or a ranch, or a pasture, etc. It is clear that any animals that live there aren't abused.

 

yes, and some people believe god created the world. and some people believe it's ok to have sex with children. and some people believe it's ok to chop other people's heads off. so what? that has no bearing on what i think.

 

..............................................

 

um, ok. argue it.

 

Your analogy fails here because those are all rather different cases. And in any case it doesn't support you because what you think is irrelevant. The question here is whether any of those things are right, and so far I have no reason to believe that killing animals for food is wrong for reasons that I and a bunch of others have given.

 

And I think you should refer to SkepticLance's posts if you want to see an argument for keeping animals as livestock before I waste my time arguing with you about animals and freedom.

 

i'm not sure about selfishness. why don't you enlighten me and give me some examples of how i might be living a selfish life? i'm sure there are some ways (which i probably cannot help), but I don't think that has any bearing on the things that I can help and things that I can willingly choose to do. and I don't know what you're talking about in regards to nature. It just sound like blah blah blah to me because I don't think it relates to anything i said.

 

did i ever say that my opinion was fact? did i try to force it on you? i don't think i did. I'm just throwin' in my two cents here. Sorry to offend, your highness.

 

Right here:

 

you would willingly cause the suffering of another being just to gratify yourself for' date=' what, a couple of minutes at the most?

wow.

[/quote']

 

you can try to set up various hypothetical questions and situations and try to talk me into a corner, but i'll still say that eating meat causes suffering and we don't have to in order to survive and i wish that more people weren't so selfish. just leave animals alone and let them live their lives with as little human intervention as possible.

 

eally? sounds like a pretty good argument to me. but then maybe you don't mind being selfish.

however, i do not believe that the majority of animals raised for food are treated humanely. they suffer and then they die. i can only speak for myself, but i'd much rather live a free, natural life, even for a few months, than one in a cage or a pen.

it's the quality of the lives of the animals that i'm most concerned with, not just the killing of them.

 

What you are doing is immediately dismissing people on the basis of their diet and their views on eating because it doesn't fit with YOUR ideology. Likewise, you are implicitly suggesting that because you "care" you are somehow superior other people. You are making the appeal to pity logical fallacies and other irrelevant appeals.

 

Since you are intent on claiming the moral high ground, you have been challenged and have been asked to back up your views. You will either put up or shut up.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As I said before, I have no problem with opinions. What I do have a problem with are people who try to force them on other people, or who claim them to be fact. You will not be warned again.

 

 

Otherwise I think I speak for all here when I say: Keep your annoying self-righteous mindless paranoia to yourself. I know plenty of savage, meat eating predators with better morals than you.

[lovejunkie02]

Do you want me to list specific examples? Why don't you go look at a farm, or a ranch, or a pasture, etc. It is clear that any animals that live there aren't abused.

Obviously, it's not clear. At least not to me. I believe that is the argument we are now having.

 

And I think you should refer to SkepticLance's posts if you want to see an argument for keeping animals as livestock before I waste my time arguing with you about animals and freedom.

 

I have read everyone else's posts.

 

 

What you are doing is immediately dismissing people on the basis of their diet and their views on eating because it doesn't fit with YOUR ideology. Likewise, you are implicitly suggesting that because you "care" you are somehow superior other people. You are making the appeal to pity logical fallacies and other irrelevant appeals.

 

Since you are intent on claiming the moral high ground, you have been challenged and have been asked to back up your views. You will either put up or shut up.

 

I think my point was that it seemed a selfish view and it's not any less selfish just because other people or animals behave in similar ways. I think that post was in response to one in which someone said, basically, that it was indeed selfish but they do it anyway. So you missed the argument completely. And I don't dismiss anyone. I don't agree with it, but I don't dismiss them or their opinions.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As I said before, I have no problem with opinions. What I do have a problem with are people who try to force them on other people, or who claim them to be fact. You will not be warned again.

 

Thanks for the warning. I'll just be here, quakin' in my vegan boots.

 

Otherwise I think I speak for all here when I say: Keep your annoying self-righteous mindless paranoia to yourself. I know plenty of savage, meat eating predators with better morals than you.

 

You're so aggressive. What's that about? Is this not you, "claiming the moral high ground" here?

[Mr Skeptic]

really? sounds like a pretty good argument to me. but then maybe you don't mind being selfish.

 

I think you are selfish too. If you weren't you could give whatever money you pay to access the internet to the poor, and the time saved you could work and get more money to give to the poor. Sounds like you're being a hypocrite.

 

Note: I am a selfish bastard, but that doesn't mean I can't point out that you are one too.

 

however, i do not believe that the majority of animals raised for food are treated humanely. they suffer and then they die.

 

Believe? Why don't you go check out the farms then. Some of them are quite good, especially the open range ones.

 

i can only speak for myself, but i'd much rather live a free, natural life, even for a few months, than one in a cage or a pen.

 

There's still plenty of forest out there. You can leave the artificial constructions us humans have made and go live a free, natural life in some forest where you won't bug us.

 

it's the quality of the lives of the animals that i'm most concerned with, not just the killing of them.

 

Good for you. Go visit a ranch, then.

[Reaper]

I think my point was that it seemed a selfish view and it's not any less selfish just because other people or animals behave in similar ways. I think that post was in response to one in which someone said, basically, that it was indeed selfish but they do it anyway. So you missed the argument completely. And I don't dismiss anyone. I don't agree with it, but I don't dismiss them or their opinions.

 

You did not! First you came in here bashing everyone for eating meat. And then when some of us came up with a counter argument, you immediately dismissed it without addressing any points and instead ranted on about your beliefs and implicitly assumed that everyone believed otherwise were somehow less "moral". Its easy to determine that from the attitude of your posts. You cherrypicked sentences and made a strawman from Paralith's post from what I've can see, because what you said was clearly not the point of her post.

 

Now that your back is against the wall, your trying to deny responsibility for your statements and ridiculous propositions?

 

You're so aggressive. What's that about? Is this not you, "claiming the moral high ground" here?

 

Now your just trying to shift attention away from yourself. I am not trying to claim the moral high ground, rather that I am discrediting your claim to it. You came in here claiming that you are more moral based on your beliefs, and we discredited and debunked that idea.

 

But you know what, you are probably right about this one thing, that I shouldn't be that aggressive. I certainly do know better then that! After all, given your attitude you are not likely to gain ANY significant support for your world view. Good bye lovejunkie02!

[ParanoiA]

Funny how Lovejunkie ridicules people for believing in god, yet shares the same irrational "belief" quirk with veganism. Show me the logic. All I've heard is one inaccurate emotional appeal after another.

[Paralith]

really? sounds like a pretty good argument to me. but then maybe you don't mind being selfish.

however, i do not believe that the majority of animals raised for food are treated humanely. they suffer and then they die. i can only speak for myself, but i'd much rather live a free, natural life, even for a few months, than one in a cage or a pen.

it's the quality of the lives of the animals that i'm most concerned with, not just the killing of them.

 

I know Dr.DNA already went here, but yes, I don't mind being selfish about some things, and clearly you don't either. You buy yourself internet when you could spend your money and time on a more worthwhile cause. I'm sure you've had your fair share of birthday parties - why make your friends waste their money buying you material objects when they could spend that money on the poor as well? Let's be realistic. If you go down that road, this is where you end up. As humans we claim the right to do things that will make us happy, so long as we do not cause suffering to others in doing so. And since you won't even take the word of someone who worked on a farm that food animals are well treated, then I doubt anything other than a tour of the land's ranches will change your mind. Yes, there are ranches and farms that treat their animals poorly. But that is not very common in the US and other industrial nations, and is becoming less common across the world as well.

[lovejunkie02]

And then when some of us came up with a counter argument, you immediately dismissed it without addressing any points and instead ranted on about your beliefs and implicitly assumed that everyone believed otherwise were somehow less "moral".

 

i'm sorry. i must have missed your "argument". which one are you referring to? the one where y'all just say "read everyone else's posts? or the one where y'all just say it is so because it just is?

and one person's experience is not universal truth. because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so.

 

This was my honest question:

if you don't absolutely have to cause the pain or suffering of another animal in order to survive, why would you? we don't need meat, so why eat it?

And this is the answer I got back:

Because it's delicious. Simple really. Also, they'd eat me if they could.

Now, it seems to me that this isn't a sophisticated, supported, intelligent response in any kind of way. So of course I responded with a judgment:

you would willingly cause the suffering of another being just to gratify yourself for, what, a couple of minutes at the most?

wow.

And of course, I get:

Yup. Bonus points if it pisses off silly people

 

PS: I eat less meat than a lion does.

 

Seems like just another post trying to bait me. How would you have me respond to that? You can continue to dismiss me if you want. Continue to feel superior. Do what makes you feel good.

[john5746]

http://www.vegfamily.com/articles/win-argument-meat-eater.htm

 

Some arguments pro-vegetarian, from a biased source. I think there are some good arguments though. Seems reasonable that the closer you can get your energy directly from the sun, the better. Less waste that way. Of course, I am a meat eater, so I like freedom better!

[ParanoiA]

i'm sorry. i must have missed your "argument". which one are you referring to? the one where y'all just say "read everyone else's posts? or the one where y'all just say it is so because it just is?

and one person's experience is not universal truth. because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so.

 

How hideously inconsistent. All you've done is say it is so "because it just is". That's been your whole argument here.

 

Do you not see the obvious in your last sentence? Because there is one farm that mistreats their animals does not mean that there are no farms that treat them good.

 

Honestly, I've seen good experienced, logical posts from Paralith, Skeptic and Lockheed, and you respond to each of them with emotional appeals and stereotypical vegan rhetoric that's been debunked over and over in this thread.

 

We are animals. We are predators. We are the most dangerous efficient predator on the earth. And we're so kick ass that we actually "feel" enough for our prey that we wish no suffering for them - and that's a fringe benefit granted to no other prey on the earth by no other predator.

 

All animals are driven by self interest. That is our job. We owe it to nature to do our job. If predators suddenly contemplated how cruel they were and selflessly became herbivores then overpopulation of life becomes an extinction factor for thousands of species.

 

Natural selection depends on self interest. This is the logic that you refuse to deal with.

 

Tell me why the predatory animal called Humans should not continue to cooperate with a process that's been in place for millions of years and is responsible for our very existence.

[SkepticLance]

Seems to me there are two issues here, and they are getting mixed up.

 

1. Cruelty to animals

2. The morality of eating meat.

 

On issue 1, I bet we could quickly get consensus from all those contributing to this thread. Do we all oppose cruelty to animals? I bet we do.

 

There will be farms that let their standards lapse. I know of a couple of battery chicken farms that definitely should be closed down. The way they keep their animals is a crime. I suspect that everyone on this thread would agree with me. Farmers who do not care properly for their animals, and allow them to suffer, well - they are criminals and should be shut down. Anyone disagree?

 

However, issue 2 is quite different.

If animals are well cared for, and permitted to live a life that is longer on average than they could live in the wild, less stressful, and healthier, and then killed painlessly and without stress - then what is the moral dilemma? Those animals will live better lives than otherwise can be expected.

[ParanoiA]

Once again, a logical, thoughtful post by SkepticLance.

 

Yes, I agree with you on 1. In fact, I was under the impression that chicken farms and such are terrible even when up to government standards. I've seen some ugly films on the matter. And I agree, they are criminals and should be prosecuted - and I believe many of them are, thanks to SPCA, PETA and etc.

 

Issue 2 - again, I totally agree here. But, I also believe there should always be a population of these species left in the wild. I have no problems with ethical farming, but I don't think we should remove a species entirely from the wild.

[lovejunkie02]

 

Do you not see the obvious in your last sentence? Because there is one farm that mistreats their animals does not mean that there are no farms that treat them good.

 

you've terrible misquoted me here. someone said that i should take one person's account as universal truth. what i said in response is just because one person has a single account of life on a farm does not mean that it is true for all animals' lives on farms. i said "because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so." that's quite different.

[Mr Skeptic]

i'm sorry. i must have missed your "argument". which one are you referring to? the one where y'all just say "read everyone else's posts? or the one where y'all just say it is so because it just is?

and one person's experience is not universal truth.

 

Maybe you should do the former and not do the latter. Then people might take you seriously.

 

because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so.

 

No, but it completely destroys your argument. It shows that we can, in fact, eat meat without causing excessive suffering.

 

Now, it seems to me that this isn't a sophisticated, supported, intelligent response in any kind of way. So of course I responded with a judgment:

you would willingly cause the suffering of another being just to gratify yourself for, what, a couple of minutes at the most?

wow.

And of course, I get:

 

Yup. Bonus points if it pisses off silly people

 

PS: I eat less meat than a lion does.

Seems like just another post trying to bait me. How would you have me respond to that? You can continue to dismiss me if you want. Continue to feel superior. Do what makes you feel good.

 

In my defense, you do seem silly, and also amusing. Though you are getting more of the former and less of the latter as time goes on and the posts accumulate.

 

Also, I wish to point out how silly it is to expect us to not eat meat. We are omnivores, which means we eat plants and animals.

 

Do we have less rights than an animal? Perhaps you should start the Campaign for Vegetarian Omnivores.

 

Why does it not bother you that other omnivores eat meat? They have the choice to eat only veggies, but they to choose to eat meat.

 

Why are you not bothered by carnivores, who's very life depends on eating others?

[Paralith]

you've terrible misquoted me here. someone said that i should take one person's account as universal truth. what i said in response is just because one person has a single account of life on a farm does not mean that it is true for all animals' lives on farms. i said "because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so." that's quite different.

 

I imagine that "someone" is probably me. If that's what I said, then I mispoke. What I meant is that you have a first person account of a farm where animals are treated well, and that this should be proof that food animals can and are, in some places at least, treated humanely. And clearly, you agree with me. No, this does not mean food animals are treated humanely on every farm, and I said as much myself earlier. This does, however, over turn your condemnation of all people who eat meat, since clearly those who eat meat from humane farms are adding enjoyment and nutrition to their lives without undue suffering of the animals involved.

[DrDNA]

In the future, our food will be assimilated directly from atoms in replicators. So farms, slaughterhouses, and animal suffering at the hand of man will be unpleasant, but distant memories from our barbaric, uncivilized past.

 

We are ready Mr Scott. Energize.

[iNow]

There will always be people who choose to eat meat. We can only make choices for ourselves, and if we on our own choose not to eat meat that is fine. However, we must accept that others might make a different decision.

 

I appreciate where you're coming from with this, lovejunkie. You don't want us to kill. You see the animals as defenseless and exploited. You want to stop suffering. These are all points of valour and character.

 

Nobody here is asking that animals suffer.

Most people here are asking that they be able to make their own choices, and not be made to feel shame for their acting on an evolved tendency to eat meat.

 

Perhaps you can help present some new non-meat protien sources.

 

If you don't like the choices people are making, one of the best things you can do is offer them alternatives.

 

 

Even vegetarians crave bacon.

[Reaper]

http://www.vegfamily.com/articles/win-argument-meat-eater.htm

 

Some arguments pro-vegetarian, from a biased source. I think there are some good arguments though. Seems reasonable that the closer you can get your energy directly from the sun, the better. Less waste that way. Of course, I am a meat eater, so I like freedom better!

 

 

Some are, but not all of them are consistent, and ignore many facts about meat. For one, meat is much more convenient to convert into energy for us than plant matter. Second, its not as easy for us humans to digest plant matter, unlike meat. I can list many more, but I think this guy can explain it better than me, courtesy of quackwatch:

 

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/vegan.html

 

and about the world hunger issue, in the end overpopulation growth will outstrip ANY amount of plants we can grow to feed them. Eventually all species will outstrip their resources, whether they are herbivores or not. Also, do we really want that much more people on this planet? They will demand a lot more things than just food...

 

Here lists some benefits AND risks of being a vegetarian: http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/vegetarian.html

 

In the future, our food will be assimilated directly from atoms in replicators. So farms, slaughterhouses, and animal suffering at the hand of man will be unpleasant, but distant memories from our barbaric, uncivilized past.

 

We are ready Mr Scott. Energize.

 

And I suppose in the future we will have the stupendous amount of energy necessary to do that too ....

[ironizer]

On issue 1, I bet we could quickly get consensus from all those contributing to this thread. Do we all oppose cruelty to animals? I bet we do.

 

There will be farms that let their standards lapse. I know of a couple of battery chicken farms that definitely should be closed down. The way they keep their animals is a crime. I suspect that everyone on this thread would agree with me. Farmers who do not care properly for their animals, and allow them to suffer, well - they are criminals and should be shut down. Anyone disagree?

 

yes. who are the vegans to decide ethics? Eating animals has always been a thing of survival. God created animals (and plants and fish) so we can eat them If you believe in Darwinism, then the best animals dominate inferior ones to survive. If you don't want to be part this cycle of life, you can go ahead and die, it's your choice.

 

Farming plants also kills animals because of the fertilizer and energy required to farm, as well as clearing forests which kills many species. If you think you're doing the world a favor by supporting farming, you're hopelessly ignorant.

[DrDNA]

And I suppose in the future we will have the stupendous amount of energy necessary to do that too ....

 

You know it! Endless amounts of energy.

And money will be obsolete, everyone will spend their time working towards the betterment of all of mankind, and the science officer will have pointy ears and green blood......

 

.....and we will go to work each day on our own flying pigs (which we won't eat no matter how good they taste and how much we are tempted).

 

It will be wonderful.

[ParanoiA]

you've terrible misquoted me here. someone said that i should take one person's account as universal truth. what i said in response is just because one person has a single account of life on a farm does not mean that it is true for all animals' lives on farms. i said "because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so." that's quite different.

 

That's not a misquote. You mean "out of context" quote, and ordinarily I would agree with you however it stands on its own - in or out of context in this case. Here's the context:

 

And then when some of us came up with a counter argument' date=' you immediately dismissed it without addressing any points and instead ranted on about your beliefs and implicitly assumed that everyone believed otherwise were somehow less "moral". [/quote']

 

i'm sorry. i must have missed your "argument". which one are you referring to? the one where y'all just say "read everyone else's posts? or the one where y'all just say it is so because it just is?

and one person's experience is not universal truth. because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so.

 

What you're doing is not backing up your statements. You won't pursuade anyone like that.

[SkepticLance]

A small point about cruelty on farms.

 

Animals that are raised in conditions of sickness, stress, hunger, pain etc., will fail to put on weight. Dairy cows will fail to produce much milk. Those farms will be less productive and will lose money. Animals that are treated cruelly at time of slaughter will be stressed, and this translates into tough and poor tasting meat.

 

It is financially advantageous for both farmers and slaughterhouse operators to treat animals well. They make more money that way.

 

Sure, there are still people who treat animals cruelly. However, for meat animals, the money incentive is towards treating them well. Thus, the majority of farmers do what they can towards their animals welfare.

[MrSandman]

Ok firstly sandman dude, i have no idea where you came from but please go away.

 

Everything you say is completely ilogical and irrelevant. The only arguement you have is to turn something i said completely the wrong way around and pretend as if i said to eat a 3 year old child is ok when its completely not! You are all completely gross for even suggesting that and completely stupid which shows how lame your arguments are.

 

Your even so stupid you refer to me as a 'he' when i would think it is pretty obvious I am not.

 

I never said not to eat meat! You can do whatever you like. I am only suggesting you think about what you are really eating and that is pain and suffering.

 

If you honestly believe in meat THAT much you think you would create a logical argument. But all you have created is stupidity and the only reason to eat meat being your selfish desires.

 

Oh good job... not.

 

 

Ahhhhhhhh! I see well, firefly doesn't rly make you a girl, but ok. I've been using extremes to show how your idea is completely wrong. Read the other posts. You can clearly see that pigs or animals don't have the right to live. The right is earned. Now try and see the picture from another side.

 

Just remember, I'm A VEGETERIAN. You got it, so you see I'm very good at seeing their views even though I'm not a ominivore. Now try to logical support why you believe the way you do. The animals will suffer when they die whether it be by a shotgun or not. Most domestic pigs probably wouldn't live that long on their own. A predator such as a lion is way more brutal than a human.

[lovejunkie02]

That's not a misquote. You mean "out of context" quote, and ordinarily I would agree with you however it stands on its own - in or out of context in this case. Here's the context:

 

 

 

What you're doing is not backing up your statements. You won't pursuade anyone like that.

 

no i said what i meant. you misquoted me. you changed the exact words of my post and in doing so, completely changed the meaning. that was my point and it still stands.

[ParanoiA]

no i said what i meant. you misquoted me. you changed the exact words of my post and in doing so, completely changed the meaning. that was my point and it still stands.

 

Ok, show me how I "misquoted" you. That would imply that I changed your words around; paraphrased...etc.