Vegetarianism/Veganism

[Stevo985]

10 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Somehow I never got the "morally cruel" argument for two reasons. One religious (and ignore it if you wish to disagree) and second more "down to earth".

1. Religious

If you are a religious believer, you will believe animals are created FOR humans. And if you are not a religious believer, you could raise a question of what do you base morality on in order to believe in animal cruelty? What drives your moral compass to believe that?

I couldn't give a **** about religion. I respect everybody's religion, whichever they choose to follow, but it's nothing to do with it.

10 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

 

Eating animals is bad. But wearing leather belts or shoes is ok. When you are Ill, it's ok to use drugs that have been tested on animals. It's ok to drive on a motorway that has gone through a deer territorry, and essentially killed its population in that place. It's ok to build wind farms, destroying the breeding flight paths of birds. It's ok to go on holiday and use a plane, using a massive amount of CO2 that cannot be good for wildlife.

 

None of those things are ok. But it's about what you can do personally. I can't stop someone building a motorway through a deer territory, or stop them building a wind farm.
I can quite easily stop eating meat. I can quite easily stop using any animal products (which I'm slowly moving towards).

 

Basically, as someone said on page 1 of this thread (Davkaus maybe), don't let perfection be the enemy of good. Just because I don't eat meat but I do use a plane to go on holiday doesn't suddenly negate the not eating meat part.

Eating meat is cruel to animals. That's a fact. It just comes down to whether you're ok with the cruelty or not. If you are then fair enough. My choice is that I'm not ok with it.
The argument of "well your phone is made by little asian children so you may as well just eat meat anyway" doesn't make much sense to me.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

 

I just think the "don't eat meat because it's cruel" argument a little inconsistent. Sure, you can say that every little helps, but I just think that it's a very high moral ground to be taking when you consider how little we actually do as a species to look after animals.

I don't really understand this. The fact that we as a species do so little to look after animals is exactly why people take a high moral ground with vegetarianism/veganism. To try and show others how little we do and how much more we should do.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

None of those things are ok. But it's about what you can do personally. I can't stop someone building a motorway through a deer territory, or stop them building a wind farm.
I can quite easily stop eating meat. I can quite easily stop using any animal products (which I'm slowly moving towards).

 

Basically, as someone said on page 1 of this thread (Davkaus maybe), don't let perfection be the enemy of good. Just because I don't eat meat but I do use a plane to go on holiday doesn't suddenly negate the not eating meat part.

Eating meat is cruel to animals. That's a fact. It just comes down to whether you're ok with the cruelty or not. If you are then fair enough. My choice is that I'm not ok with it.

Whilst taking on board the 'don't let perfection be the enemy of good' line, if one of your fundamental objections to eating meat is a notion of cruelty (itself a term that covers a range of behaviour(s)) then this becomes something of a principle. If it is unbounded, i.e. cruelty to animals on any level is unacceptable, then the culling of any one single animal would be anathema, surely? If it is bounded by a concept of necessity (killing some rats that have infested a vegetarian restaurant, for example), then this fact that you use to guide whether one thing is acceptable or not takes on less meaning. It's not a case of whether or not you or anyone else is ok with the cruelty but in what circumstances you are okay with what you have termed 'cruel'.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

No we wouldn’t. I don’t know if there’s the odd animal we’d have to cull, but in general that’s nonsense. We just wouldn’t breed them anymore. 

there’s lots of stuff we’ve evolved to do. Doesn’t mean it’s healthy. It’s fact that in general a meat based diet is worse for you. If you don’t care about that then that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean it’s not healthier to not eat meat just because you don’t care about it.  

(not always by the way. You can have a good diet that includes meat and you can have an awful diet that doesn’t include meat. But in general, a vegetarian/vegan diet is better for you than a meat based diet)

You do know that animals are able to breed themselves right? 

Left unchecked, cows and pigs would be everywhere, likewise sheep, they would be culled periodically just like other, smaller and less obtrusive animals are today. 

It's the thing with veganism, it makes people so indignant that there's no other side to the coin, just their side. 

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Whilst taking on board the 'don't let perfection be the enemy of good' line, if one of your fundamental objections to eating meat is a notion of cruelty (itself a term that covers a range of behaviour(s)) then this becomes something of a principle. If it is unbounded, i.e. cruelty to animals on any level is unacceptable, then the culling of any one single animal would be anathema, surely? If it is bounded by a concept of necessity (killing some rats that have infested a vegetarian restaurant, for example), then this fact that you use to guide whether one thing is acceptable or not takes on less meaning. It's not a case of whether or not you or anyone else is ok with the cruelty but in what circumstances you are okay with what you have termed 'cruel'.

 

I don't condone culling of any kind.

But people have given examples of times when culling appears to be an absolute necessity. I don't know enough about the respective situations to know if that is true but I think i can accept that in certain situations culling MIGHT be necessary for the "greater good", I just don't understand them enough.

In respect to your last line, yeah that's probably what it is. The circumstances. I don't believe it's acceptable to inflict the cruelty that occurs when we kill animals for food because of the circumstances. We don't NEED to eat animals. Therefore to me that cruelty is wholly unnecessary and those circumstances are what deem it abhorrent. 

Now I totally accept that there may be cruelty happening in other circumstances that I turn a blind eye to. Is that hypocritical? Probably. But it's an evolving thing. If someone points something out to me that seems hypocritical then I'll try and change if I see their side of it. I don't see that as negating the good of not eating meat.

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

You do know that animals are able to breed themselves right? 

Left unchecked, cows and pigs would be everywhere, likewise sheep, they would be culled periodically just like other, smaller and less obtrusive animals are today. 

 

No, I really don't think they would. But I'm happy to read any sources that prove otherwise. I'd guess, and it is a guess, that the danger would actually be the opposite.

And if they did HAVE to be culled (as in my previous post I'm not really sure if culling is ever necessary but I admit I don't know enough about it, I'm still learning plenty of stuff) then I'd argue the death toll would be far far far less than the billions that are killed at the moment for food.

[Mic09]

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't condone culling of any kind.

But people have given examples of times when culling appears to be an absolute necessity. I don't know enough about the respective situations to know if that is true but I think i can accept that in certain situations culling MIGHT be necessary for the "greater good", I just don't understand them enough.

In respect to your last line, yeah that's probably what it is. The circumstances. I don't believe it's acceptable to inflict the cruelty that occurs when we kill animals for food because of the circumstances. We don't NEED to eat animals. Therefore to me that cruelty is wholly unnecessary and those circumstances are what deem it abhorrent. 

Now I totally accept that there may be cruelty happening in other circumstances that I turn a blind eye to. Is that hypocritical? Probably. But it's an evolving thing. If someone points something out to me that seems hypocritical then I'll try and change if I see their side of it. I don't see that as negating the good of not eating meat.

Exactly, that was my point in my previous post. We are all cruel to animals. Heck, we are all cruel to each other.

But throwing a moral abslute "I don't eat mean because it's cruel and by definition you must be cruel because you eat meat" is a very high moral ground to be taking. 

Because we don't NEED to travel on planes. We don't NEED to eat strawberries picked during 12 hour shift by Eastern European workers in the burning heat of Spanish sun. We don't NEED to have cars.

I just can't see how anyone can make moral judgements of this nature when we live a way of life (and I assume you do unless you live in the forest) that has little regard for nature altogether. 

It's a bit like having a moral ethic about eating a big Mac, having ice cream and a chocolate milkshake and washing it down with a diet coke. Because that is a healthier thing to do. 

If you are going to make a moral claim, it just lacks consistency for me.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Mic09

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

No, I really don't think they would. But I'm happy to read any sources that prove otherwise. I'd guess, and it is a guess, that the danger would actually be the opposite.

And if they did HAVE to be culled (as in my previous post I'm not really sure if culling is ever necessary but I admit I don't know enough about it, I'm still learning plenty of stuff) then I'd argue the death toll would be far far far less than the billions that are killed at the moment for food.

Maybe so, but they’d be killed pointlessly, as opposed to serving their purpose in the food chain as they have since day dot.

[Stevo985]

5 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Maybe so, but they’d be killed pointlessly, as opposed to serving their purpose in the food chain as they have since day dot.

Well it wouldn't be pointless. If these so hypothetical culls occurred then there would absolutely have to be a point otherwise they shouldn't be happening. But like I said I don't think these culls would happen. We wouldn't be so overpopulated with Cows that we'd have to cull them for example. The only reason we have so many cows is because we farm them for food.

 

And if you think the purpose of animals is to be food for us then that's where we're fundamentally different.

[Stevo985]

6 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Exactly, that was my point in my previous post. We are all cruel to animals. Heck, we are all cruel to each other.

But throwing a moral abslute "I don't eat mean because it's cruel and by definition you must be cruel because you eat meat" is a very high moral ground to be taking. 

Because we don't NEED to travel on planes. We don't NEED to eat strawberries picked during 12 hour shift by Eastern European workers in the burning heat of Spanish sun. We don't NEED to have cars.

I just can't see how anyone can make moral judgements of this nature when we live a way of life (and I assume you do unless you live in the forest) that has little regard for nature altogether. 

It's a bit like having a moral ethic about eating a big Mac, having ice cream and a chocolate milkshake and washing it down with a diet coke. Because that is a healthier thing to do. 

If you are going to make a moral claim, it just lacks consistency for me.

 

But why can't we have moral stances on all these things individually?

Why does my moral stance on eating animals have to be irrelevant because I still travel on planes?

[blandy]

5 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Maybe so, but they’d be killed pointlessly, as opposed to serving their purpose in the food chain as they have since day dot.

They'd be dog food, cat food etc.

Thing is, leaving aside the moral aspects for a moment, if more and more people go veggie/vegan, then there's a gradual reduction in the scale of animal farming for meat etc. So if a chicken farmer currently has 10,000 chickens he keeps for meat, and he kills them all each year, when the demand for chicken reduces, he will need to keep only 9000 the next year, then 8000, then etc. The place that keeps chickens to see the chicks to chicken meat farmers will reduce the amount of chicken it uses and so on. after a few years the overall number in the chain will be lower, but with no culling for no purpose - some will still be killed for dog food, or whatever. Smaller scale means higher standards of welfare can be adhered to..everyone is better off, really, in terms of quality of life and eco footprint.

[snowychap]

8 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't condone culling of any kind.

But people have given examples of times when culling appears to be an absolute necessity. I don't know enough about the respective situations to know if that is true but I think i can accept that in certain situations culling MIGHT be necessary for the "greater good", I just don't understand them enough.

In respect to your last line, yeah that's probably what it is. The circumstances. I don't believe it's acceptable to inflict the cruelty that occurs when we kill animals for food because of the circumstances. We don't NEED to eat animals. Therefore to me that cruelty is wholly unnecessary and those circumstances are what deem it abhorrent. 

Now I totally accept that there may be cruelty happening in other circumstances that I turn a blind eye to. Is that hypocritical? Probably. But it's an evolving thing. If someone points something out to me that seems hypocritical then I'll try and change if I see their side of it. I don't see that as negating the good of not eating meat.

It's not about you being hypocritical or your opinion not having evolved enough to encompass even more circumstances where you would also gleefulllyu happen upon the opportunity to take the hardened position (over what appears to be a very short time since deciding to become vegetarian) that you now appear to espouse about people eating meat or killing animals for meat, i.e. apppearing to be very comfortable in describing it as abhorrent.

Frankly, there is absolutely zero point in engaging in a debate about the eating or not eating of meat with zealous converts to vegetarianism and that's what you're coming across as.

 

[chrisp65]

7 hours ago, Mic09 said:

If you are going to make a moral claim, it just lacks consistency for me.

don't let perfect be the enemy of good

 

 

[Stevo985]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's not about you being hypocritical or your opinion not having evolved enough to encompass even more circumstances where you would also gleefulllyu happen upon the opportunity to take the hardened position (over what appears to be a very short time since deciding to become vegetarian) that you now appear to espouse about people eating meat or killing animals for meat, i.e. apppearing to be very comfortable in describing it as abhorrent.

Frankly, there is absolutely zero point in engaging in a debate about the eating or not eating of meat with zealous converts to vegetarianism and that's what you're coming across as.

 

Erm, ok. That seems like quite a strong reaction. 

I’ve been really honest in that I’m still learning about this whole thing. Every time I engage with someone I always try to say stuff like I’m happy to read anything that counters anything I’m saying. Just like the culling discussion. My immediate opinion is that I don’t agree with it. But if someone presents something that counters that I’m genuinely interested in the discussion. 

I don’t think I’ve been overzealous in any discussions in this topic. If I have then I apologise. But I also don’t think that just because I’m a fairly recent convert I can’t have strong feelings on the subject. When’s the cut off when I’m allowed to have strong feelings?

Theres plenty of other posters who take the hardened position (which by the way I don’t think I do take) as you call it. Not sure why you’ve picked on me  

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Stevo985

[blandy]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

When’s the cut off when I’m allowed to have strong feelings?

This is the internet, and no one EVER exhibits strong feelings on it. Don’t you know ANYTHING?

[chrisp65]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

Not sure why you’ve picked on me  

you can't have a reasoned debate with murderers

[snowychap]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

They'd be dog food, cat food etc.

Thing is, leaving aside the moral aspects for a moment, if more and more people go veggie/vegan, then there's a gradual reduction in the scale of animal farming for meat etc. So if a chicken farmer currently has 10,000 chickens he keeps for meat, and he kills them all each year, when the demand for chicken reduces, he will need to keep only 9000 the next year, then 8000, then etc. The place that keeps chickens to see the chicks to chicken meat farmers will reduce the amount of chicken it uses and so on. after a few years the overall number in the chain will be lower, but with no culling for no purpose - some will still be killed for dog food, or whatever. Smaller scale means higher standards of welfare can be adhered to..everyone is better off, really, in terms of quality of life and eco footprint.

I think it's very mistaken to imagine that a gradual reduction in demand for meat (in the west - because that is what we're really talking about here) is going to necessarily end up with smaller scale producers upholding higher standards of welfare than are currently the average.

If it's higher welfare standards for meat food production that people want then encouraging people to change their demand from cheaper, mass-produced meat products to better-looked after, cared for livestock (and what they end up as in the shop) is quite possibly a much better idea.

No one who believes that eating meat, raising liverstock or using animals for any human purpose is going to engage in that kind of encouragement because that is necessarily anathema to what they believe is an abhorrent practice. By pressing that case in such a way to current meat-eaters, their evangleism may bring some to their cause - I'd venture it will have much less impact upon animal welfare in the meat industry than either campaigning for improved regulation or the idea I put forward above.

Anyway, all this chatter is making me hungry.

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Theres plenty of other posters who take the hardened position (which by the way I don’t think I do take) as you call it. Not sure why you’ve picked on me

I haven't picked on you - it's called replying to a post. I've posted in this thread previously but not too much - I just happened to open it up this morning and your post was the one talking about cruelty. I didn't think it added up and so I asked you a question or two and made a point or two about what you had said.

That you don't think you are taking a hard and fast position suggests that you're further down the path than you realise.

Edited May 18, 2019 by snowychap

[blandy]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

I think it's very mistaken to imagine that a gradual reduction in demand for meat (in the west - because that is what we're really talking about here) is going to necessarily end up with smaller scale producers upholding higher standards of welfare than are currently the average.

If it's higher welfare standards for meat food production that people want then encouraging people to change their demand from cheaper, mass-produced meat products to better-looked after, cared for livestock (and what they end up as in the shop) is quite possibly a much better idea.

No one who believes that eating meat, raising liverstock or using animals for any human purpose is going to engage in that kind of encouragement because that is necessarily anathema to what they believe....

You might be right Darren, it might not happen and I might be mistaken to imagine otherwise. Though couldn’t I argue that animal welfare standards in farming in the west have risen, and that this is basically down to campaigning and demand from the population? I’d wonder whether, as per the discussion point, if more people go veggie or vegan that further pressure on meat producers, who would already have reduced volumes of critters, wouldn’t also lead to higher welfare standards, not just because a more animal sympathetic society would demand it, but also because they could maker larger profit margins?

i think you’re right about radical evangelicals not having the effect, but wider society changing their outlook might do.

[Stevo985]

14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I haven't picked on you - it's called replying to a post. I've posted in this thread previously but not too much - I just happened to open it up this morning and your post was the one talking about cruelty. I didn't think it added up and so I asked you a question or two and made a point or two about what you had said.

That you don't think you are taking a hard and fast position suggests that you're further down the path than you realise.

Ok