Why I'm becoming a vegetarian

[Fragony]

i heard u should steer clear from cucumbers.

Indeed http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments heh komkommertijd

[Viking]

I'm taking animal intelligence at face value. If dolphins could be shown to be as intelligent as people, then that would be a different argument with different conclusions. Until they can demonstrate that, we should restrict ourselves to assuming that they are stupid[...]

Of course we should not - that is completely illogical. I brought up technology and dolphins precisely because it would not be easy to measure intelligence of dolphins (they can't really develop any techonology). I may only assume that what you are trying to say is that you will only consider animals that actually are 'stupid' (which could well be 99.99%) for this debate.

To expand on the dolphins, different 'tribes' of dolphins may apply different, clever hunting strategies. Check it out:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Both will certainly continue to "improve", and one of the improvements of the latter should be the idea that it is wrong to kill for pleasure.

That it is wrong is your subjective opinion. Of course, the whole idea of 'civilisation' has a tendency of becoming a rhetorical device. If we define it as a society 'based upon' rational thinking, then you would have demonstrate why 'killing for pleasure' is wrong through argumentation. I do not see how you do this. What is the idea building on? What leads us to the conclusion that 'killing for pleasure' is wrong?

i heard u should steer clear from cucumbers.

Yeah, they have such an odd shape.

[Furunculus]

given that our rejection of irrational, mechanistic behaviour is what distinguishes us from animals, the rejection of killing for pleasure is a necessary step we must take in order to further separate that divide and increase the prestige of our achievements as human beings. To reject it is to embrace civilisation.

can't agree, i will continue to enjoy hunting on the rare occasions i get to experience it, and continue to consider my self civilised. but good luck.

[Fragony]

To expand on the dolphins, different 'tribes' of dolphins may apply different, clever hunting strategies. Check it out:

That is incredible

[Ironside]

If they do, it's certainly not on a level experienced by sentient creatures. And as I said, it's foolish to scorn the good for want of the perfect.

And you're sure that you aren't already trying to do just that?

Let's look at two puzzle cases:

1. A certain T. Roosevelt is out in the Dakota badlands, travelling from his ranch back to Bismarck. He's ran out of provisions, his horse bolted during the night, so he's travelling a few hundred miles or so on foot with no food. He sees a buffalo wandering around on the plains, blows a hole between its eyes with his rifle and eats it. The meat allows him to survive and make it to Bismarck.

2. A certain Theodore R. is out in the Dakota badlands on a hunting expedition. He has plenty of supplies with him in case he doesn't catch anything, but as it happens, he comes across a buffalo wandering around on the plains. He blasts a bullet through its eye socket, and eats the meat.

The former is killing for food, even though the situation he has ended up in partly due to choice, whilst the latter is killing for pleasure. The key is that the former's actions are partly driven by necessity, whilst in the latter they are wholly derived from pleasure.

Yet, by consuming the meat, he can use his supplies later on.

I oppose the waste and overhunting, not the hunt itself. Several species will overpopulate without hunting for example. If the hunters does it partially for pleasure, good for them.

This is an argument I was already aware of, and although the strongest argument against vegetarianism. However, by saying "Oh, we are granting them the privilege of life", you're conceding an inch and potentially allowing people to take a mile. Abuse of animals could be justified along the lines of "Well, we gave them the privilege of life, we can do what we like, and they should be thankful".

Yes, indeed are the risk of "we gave them the privilege of life, we can do what we like, and they should be thankful" equal to wiping out 99,99% of the specie out of "mercy".

I'm sure if you take 10.000 humans that's been treated most badly, will all agree that ending the bloodline for 9.999 of them is completely worth it, if they will be treated ok. And that's the nice non-realistic version...

Babtized children will always come to heaven (since they have no addional sin), so the logical choise is?..

[Subotan]

If they're bloody, then you may be putting them in the wrong end.

Hahaha! Either way, they're certainly less distasteful than marrows.

Indeed http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments heh komkommertijd

I can't read Dutch...

Of course we should not - that is completely illogical. I brought up technology and dolphins precisely because it would not be easy to measure intelligence of dolphins (they can't really develop any techonology). I may only assume that what you are trying to say is that you will only consider animals that actually are 'stupid' (which could well be 99.99%) for this debate.

Mhm, precisely.

To expand on the dolphins, different 'tribes' of dolphins may apply different, clever hunting strategies. Check it out:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I saw a documentary years ago about dead baby porpoises being washed up on the shore in Florida with substantial bruising. The programme went through all these different possibilities, such as whether it was boats hitting them, oil rigs, or submarines confusing them, but it turned out the culprits were dolphins. The dolphins were using the baby porpoises to play a game similar to volleyball using their snouts, and battering them to death. The show stuck with me, as it made me wonder whether what we'd consider to be exclusively human traits such as cruelty and malice are actually necessary for intelligence.

That it is wrong is your subjective opinion. Of course, the whole idea of 'civilisation' has a tendency of becoming a rhetorical device. If we define it as a society 'based upon' rational thinking, then you would have demonstrate why 'killing for pleasure' is wrong through argumentation. I do not see how you do this. What is the idea building on? What leads us to the conclusion that 'killing for pleasure' is wrong?

I don't deny in the slightest that I was using it at least partly as a rhetorical device. I'll still have a go though:

1. In a civilised society, we agree that killing people is something to be avoided. It is not entirely unavoidable, and sometimes necessary, but we would certainly agree that killing people for pleasure is wrong.
2. Killing for pleasure is wrong, because any pleasure that can be derived from killing a human is always outweighed by the permanent and massive loss of pleasure to the individual of being killed.
3. As rational creatures, we apply these principles universally. For example, it would be irrational to argue that whilst killing a Briton for pleasure is wrong, it is permissible to kill an Irishman for pleasure. A society that permitted blatant double standards such as this would be rightly considered to be uncivilised, regardless of the other achievements of that society.
4. Eating meat for pleasure i.e. when it is an optional part of our diet necessitates killing for pleasure.

5. The principle of universality established in 3 necessitates a consistent application of our principles, and as 2 established that killing for pleasure is wrong, it follows that eating meat for pleasure is wrong.

The leap is step five, and whether consistency should also be applied to animals.

can't agree, i will continue to enjoy hunting on the rare occasions i get to experience it, and continue to consider my self civilised. but good luck.

I was being poetic and melodramatic - of course I don't think that hunting and eating meat makes you uncivilised. Likewise, Himmler most definitely was. I do believe that it's a further step though, much as I believe freedom of speech, universal healthcare and the European Project all are. Thanks though!

Yet, by consuming the meat, he can use his supplies later on.

So he can stay out longer and kill more buffalo?

I oppose the waste and overhunting, not the hunt itself. Several species will overpopulate without hunting for example. If the hunters does it partially for pleasure, good for them.

I don't oppose culls - from what I've heard about the badger cull debate in the UK, the science seems to say that the spread of Bovine TB necessitates the depopulation of badgers within rural England. However, overpopulation really isn't a problem - if the deers eat too much food, then the wolves will also grow in population, until overgrazing kills off the deer, and also the wolves. It's like a business cycle for hippies.

Yes, indeed are the risk of "we gave them the privilege of life, we can do what we like, and they should be thankful" equal to wiping out 99,99% of the specie out of "mercy".

I'm sure if you take 10.000 humans that's been treated most badly, will all agree that ending the bloodline for 9.999 of them is completely worth it, if they will be treated ok. And that's the nice non-realistic version...

Babtized children will always come to heaven (since they have no addional sin), so the logical choise is?..

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you explain further?

[Viking]

I don't deny in the slightest that I was using it at least partly as a rhetorical device. I'll still have a go though:

1. In a civilised society, we agree that killing people is something to be avoided. It is not entirely unavoidable, and sometimes necessary, but we would certainly agree that killing people for pleasure is wrong.
2. Killing for pleasure is wrong, because any pleasure that can be derived from killing a human is always outweighed by the permanent and massive loss of pleasure to the individual of being killed.
3. As rational creatures, we apply these principles universally. For example, it would be irrational to argue that whilst killing a Briton for pleasure is wrong, it is permissible to kill an Irishman for pleasure. A society that permitted blatant double standards such as this would be rightly considered to be uncivilised, regardless of the other achievements of that society.
4. Eating meat for pleasure i.e. when it is an optional part of our diet necessitates killing for pleasure.

5. The principle of universality established in 3 necessitates a consistent application of our principles, and as 2 established that killing for pleasure is wrong, it follows that eating meat for pleasure is wrong.

The leap is step five, and whether consistency should also be applied to animals.

Now we're nearing. Since you have focused so much on the stupidity of animals - that they are our inferiors - it seems really odd indeed to apply rationalisation normally reserved for fellow human beings on them. Why stop at killing? We could say we should not steal their land, their trees their...yeah. Perhaps they should also be included in the NHS to free them from unnecessary suffering.

[HoreTore]

Killing humans is wrong because it hinders the human progress. A society that allows killing each other will not function as well as a society that doesn't allow killing, and as such killing other hmans hurt everyone, including yourself.

The same does not apply to animals. There is no advantage to be gained from not killing them, and as such it is perfectly fine to do so.

In fact, our meat-eating ways is the very reason why we are advanced creatures, as the proteins obtained from cooked meat lead to the evolution of a larger brain.

[Fragony]

Killing humans is wrong because it hinders the human progress. A society that allows killing each other will not function as well as a society that doesn't allow killing, and as such killing other hmans hurt everyone, including yourself.

The same does not apply to animals. There is no advantage to be gained from not killing them, and as such it is perfectly fine to do so.

In fact, our meat-eating ways is the very reason why we are advanced creatures, as the proteins obtained from cooked meat lead to the evolution of a larger brain.

Isn't any society only as good as it treats it's most vulnerable, animals are living breathing things. There is no evolutionary reason for us to eat meat, there simply isn't. Not that we shouldn't imho but we don't have to. Subotan's logic is perfectly sound (and more meat for us yay)

[Greyblades]

Isn't any society only as good as it treats it's most vulnerable, animals are living breathing things.

But most animals arent part of society, (save for a food source) those that are; we treat better than we do some people, and we dont generaly eat those (save for rabbits... or dogs, but the countries that eat dogs usualy arent considered a very good society, if they're considered one at all.)

[HoreTore]

There is no evolutionary reason to do so, no. But there are no reasons beyond personal feelings not to do so.

How we treat our most vulnerable? We have emperical evidence here. The societies who help the less fortunate, who has a safety net in place, are also the most advanced societies. There are numerous reasons for this, but being a socialist, I of course point to the low levels of social unrest and infighting you see where the difference between rich and poor is low.

The same, however, cannot be said of animals. Animals are treated like rubbish in the most advanced societies(like the US), while those who treat them well(like saudi-arabia) are backwaters.

[Greyblades]

...You obviously have never met a British cat/dog owner.

[HoreTore]

...You obviously have never met a British cat/dog owner.

As I was referring to the animals we eat, I can't see how cats and dogs are treated to be relevant.

[Fragony]

The same, however, cannot be said of animals. Animals are treated like rubbish in the most advanced societies(like the US), while those who treat them well(like saudi-arabia) are backwaters.

Only in the more modern societies animal welfare is an issue to begin with, has no relevance to the topic don't shoot me. Imho the strong should have the decency to respect the weak, being food it doesn't get any lower that, that their purpose is to feed us isn't a ticket for abuse, animals have rights as concious living beings. Not that you say they don't but the 'animals serve only one purpose' always makes me kinda icky

[Tellos Athenaios]

Isn't any society only as good as it treats it's most vulnerable, animals are living breathing things. There is no evolutionary reason for us to eat meat, there simply isn't. Not that we shouldn't imho but we don't have to. Subotan's logic is perfectly sound (and more meat for us yay)

Actually there is. If you are bringing evolution into this it is quite clear the humans are omnivores, and it is also quite clear that we owe our mental faculties to our taste for meat and bone marrow. Just a FYI: if you try your jaws are able to exert similar levels of pressure and penetration as those of a great white shark.

[Fragony]

Actually there is. If you are bringing evolution into this it is quite clear the humans are omnivores, and it is also quite clear that we owe our mental faculties to our taste for meat and bone marrow. Just a FYI: if you try your jaws are able to exert similar levels of pressure and penetration as those of a great white shark.

I'll try it but I am kinda low on great whites at the moment. We are omnivores, but there isn't any need to eat it now, we could evolve as vegetarians as we have the means to do so, think that's what Sub is at

[Ronin]

I'll try it but I am kinda low on great whites at the moment. We are omnivores, but there isn't any need to eat it now, we could evolve as vegetarians as we have the means to do so, think that's what Sub is at

to what is in bold - holy contradiction batman!
and you can´t choose what you evolve into.

[Greyblades]

As I was referring to the animals we eat, I can't see how cats and dogs are treated to be relevant.

It's not relevant, but it was said because you didnt actually refer to farm animals in your post, at least not clearly.
You said:

There is no evolutionary reason to do so, no. But there are no reasons beyond personal feelings not to do so.

How we treat our most vulnerable? We have emperical evidence here. The societies who help the less fortunate, who has a safety net in place, are also the most advanced societies. There are numerous reasons for this, but being a socialist, I of course point to the low levels of social unrest and infighting you see where the difference between rich and poor is low.

The same, however, cannot be said of animals. Animals are treated like rubbish in the most advanced societies(like the US), while those who treat them well(like saudi-arabia) are backwaters.

Note the lack of the words "Commonly eaten" in front of the word "animal".

[Tellos Athenaios]

We are omnivores, but there isn't any need to eat it now, we could evolve as vegetarians as we have the means to do so, think that's what Sub is at

Well up to a point. Here you can pretty much buy twice as many vegetables and pretend it's all as yummy as meat or fish, but we as a species cannot. For instance if you happened to be lactose intolerant, it'd be quite unhealthy to discard your only source of various vitamins which only occur in animals and which your body can't really do without. In various other places meat and fish are simply needed because they are pretty much the only source of protein rich food available, or because it is practically impossible to gather as much calories in the environment yourself -- consider the practice of eating tarantula's in the Amazonian rain forest.

[Fragony]

Well up to a point. Here you can pretty much buy twice as many vegetables and pretend it's all as yummy as meat or fish, but we as a species cannot.

So you can be a vegetarian here like Sub

[CrossLOPER]

Oh goodness... another "I can build a skyscraper" argument.

YOU can't do anything. Everything you do is a product of cooperation between the like beings around you, which I remind you is itself derived from the products of evolutionary traits gained through the same exact pathways as every other creature we know of. Without other human beings, you will become a mass of a man, unable to contribute anything. Access of information has lessened the effects of this, but the principle of it all remains the same.

You seem to be vaguely pushing forth a concept of "greater good" Humans have no such concept and overall, most strive only to survive. We are not the pinnacle of evolution. We have not changed very much in the past 75000 years and we are still susceptible to stagnation and the repercussions of our own arrogance.

That being said, I tend to avoid eating large amounts of meat and can't understand those who insist on eating large amounts of cow.

[HoreTore]

It's not relevant, but it was said because you didnt actually refer to farm animals in your post, at least not clearly.
You said:
Note the lack of the words "Commonly eaten" in front of the word "animal".

Note the word "vegetarian" in the thread title.

And since we seem to be telling everyone about our diet here, I thought I'd chip in: the main component of my diet is meat. I'd say 300g per day is an absolute minimum, and the average is probably around 5-600g. The only meal where I don't usually eat meat is breakfast - though since I have an exam tomorrow, I've prepared 200g of chicken filet I'll chuck down tomorrow morning...

It's mostly chicken, pig and fish(in the form of sushi), I'm no fan of lamb and I don't eat that much cow unless it's in the form of a steak

[Ironside]

So he can stay out longer and kill more buffalo?

Unless he can stop eating (or got access to a lot of future tech) when returning to civilization or is very, very, very hungry, that would not be a problem.

I don't oppose culls - from what I've heard about the badger cull debate in the UK, the science seems to say that the spread of Bovine TB necessitates the depopulation of badgers within rural England. However, overpopulation really isn't a problem - if the deers eat too much food, then the wolves will also grow in population, until overgrazing kills off the deer, and also the wolves. It's like a business cycle for hippies.

Hunting them for fun is evil, letting them run themself into a situation of mass death is good? Yes, the population will stabilize (at least cyclic) with time, but if we have already given the animals a high value, it's inconsistant to simply let them destroy themself.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you explain further?

That your defense is a fart compared to a hurricane. In human terms, you're suggesting wiping out ghettos out of mercy, due to the maltreatment of the humans living there. How many would call such a person humane and not a competitor to the most evil person ever?

Edit:
Animals living for food globally:
Cows 400 millions
Goats 500 millions
Turkeys 600 millions
Pigs 1,1 milliards (or billions for you Americans)
Sheeps 1,3 milliards
Ducks 2,6 milliards
Chickens 52 milliards
Rounded some numbers and taken from a National Geographic.

[Fragony]

Oh goodness... another "I can build a skyscraper" argument.

Not my argument I'm just defending it. Other than 'meat tastes good', how can you really justify eating other planet dwellers. At least aknowledge that it's a choice and not a necessity.

[Hax]

Actually there is. If you are bringing evolution into this it is quite clear the humans are omnivores, and it is also quite clear that we owe our mental faculties to our taste for meat and bone marrow. Just a FYI: if you try your jaws are able to exert similar levels of pressure and penetration as those of a great white shark.

That's what I told the coast guard, but they didn't take it well.

In any case, me being the other vegetarian on the forums, having not eaten meat for about six years (with an interval here and there), the first reason why I chose not anymore meat was not so much the fact that animals were killed (which is something we have been doing for at least the last 8,000 years), but rather the way in which they were killed.

In essence, I find it hard to swallow (heh) that when I eat meat, there is no real connection between the hunter and the prey. It goes to such a degree that we might be unaware of the fact that what we're eating was once a creature frolicking around in the wild, or at least, frolicking around with six other like-minded animals in a 2x2 pen. In any case, I don't think we should anthropomorphise animals and automatically assume that they are capable of feeling pain. There was a study pertaining to whether or not crustaceans like lobster feel pain if they are boiled alive. There is no real academic consensus concerning this, and as such I am hesitant to assume that animals are capable of realising they are in pain.

My reasons for not eating meat right now are probably that disconnection I mentioned earlier, as well as the fact that it's become something of a habit for me not to eat meat. Add to that the fact that my gastronomic philosophy can be boiled down to (padum-push) "I only eat what I would be able to kill myself", and I've hold that Buddhist ideal of not killing living creatures to a high standard, well, it doesn't give me too much space. I'm not complaining. It's fine as it is.

I don't think non-vegetarians are lesser humans, or less ethical than other people. It's unfair. Eating meat is only natural. It's our choice to act unnaturally. Don't forget that.

[Greyblades]

Note the word "vegetarian" in the thread title.

Didn't I say something about people eating dog a while ago? Eh its not important.

[Ronin]

Not my argument I'm just defending it. Other than 'meat tastes good', how can you really justify eating other planet dwellers. At least aknowledge that it's a choice and not a necessity.

your first error is the stance that it somehow needs to be justified.

[Fragony]

your first error is the stance that it somehow needs to be justified.

This thread wouldn't exist otherwise, these discussions aren't held over a piece of corn.

[Strike For The South]

These incisors are just for show

Meat is why our brains are so big and why we continue to get taller every

[jirisys]

Because we CAN eat meat, we eat meat. Also, we are attracted to greasy foods (mostly animals anyways), so it tastes good in our tastebuds.

We can't eat glass (99.99% of us at least), so we don't eat it (except the 0.01% of the 0.01%)

I wouldn't eat fresh meat either though (though I am always up for the deal if I just hunted a cow).

~Jirisys ()