Do you eat a lot of meat ?

  On 4/2/2012 at 5:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 5:29 AM, zaphod said:

I dunno, just being vegetarian makes very little sense to me, if you're doing it for moral or health reasons. I would think being vegan is the way to go.

I don't understand, explain? Why is vegetarian not the more moral option than meat eating, and why would veganism be superior to either?

 

Veganism is weird right, doesn't it say no eggs and no honey because it's bee torture? lol. Maybe I'm just laughing at a caricature of veganism tho, not the real thing...

 

Basically, what troon said, many of the animals we eat are intelligent and that's...bad. Fish and chickens? Meh, not so much. Although ducks are cool. I guess if I wanted to be ethical according to my own rules I could still include chickens and fish, because I don't think of them highly. And to be honest, anyone who has spent time around cows, well...But I love pig meat, and pigs are apparently quite smart. Tasty little Wilbur...

I think you're probably right, actually. My idea of veganism is that it's extremely strict and doesn't involve any animal products, which makes sense to me if you're practicing something on moral grounds. I know there are ethical vegans and dietary vegans, just like vegetarians. Like I said, I'm a very light meat eater, and I just don't like dairy products, but I'm extremely lazy when it comes to taking a stance on something for moral reasons. I guess I just don't see the relevance of an animal's supposed intelligence as a grounds to not eat it. For me it's an all or nothing proposition, if you're doing it for those reasons, which I wouldn't, because it's all sort of bullshit.

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:17 AM, zaphod said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 5:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 5:29 AM, zaphod said:

I dunno, just being vegetarian makes very little sense to me, if you're doing it for moral or health reasons. I would think being vegan is the way to go.

I don't understand, explain? Why is vegetarian not the more moral option than meat eating, and why would veganism be superior to either?

 

Veganism is weird right, doesn't it say no eggs and no honey because it's bee torture? lol. Maybe I'm just laughing at a caricature of veganism tho, not the real thing...

 

Basically, what troon said, many of the animals we eat are intelligent and that's...bad. Fish and chickens? Meh, not so much. Although ducks are cool. I guess if I wanted to be ethical according to my own rules I could still include chickens and fish, because I don't think of them highly. And to be honest, anyone who has spent time around cows, well...But I love pig meat, and pigs are apparently quite smart. Tasty little Wilbur...

 

I think you're probably right, actually. My idea of veganism is that it's extremely strict and doesn't involve any animal products, which makes sense to me if you're practicing something on moral grounds. I know there are ethical vegans and dietary vegans, just like vegetarians. Like I said, I'm a very light meat eater, and I just don't like dairy products, but I'm extremely lazy when it comes to taking a stance on something for moral reasons. I guess I just don't see the relevance of an animal's supposed intelligence as a grounds to not eat it. For me it's an all or nothing proposition, if you're doing it for those reasons, which I wouldn't, because it's all sort of bullshit.

At this point, I definitely agree with you.

I mean, a grizzly bear or bobcat or whatever doesn't ponder whether the animal is intelligent before eating it. It just eats it. It's the chain of life?

Natural selection etc etc.

ah, I see [re: zaphod]. Maybe we should base our morality around whether or not we can get a species drunk or stoned. If it can't get drunk or stoned, it's ok to eat...

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:20 AM, StephenG said:

I mean, a grizzly bear or bobcat or whatever doesn't ponder whether the animal is intelligent before eating it. It just eats it. It's the chain of life?

 

Natural selection etc etc.

nah, but the whole point is we're better than our base instincts. That's the idea behind morality, innit...

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:22 AM, lumpenprol said:

ah, I see [re: zaphod]. Maybe we should base our morality around whether or not we can get a species drunk or stoned. If it can't get drunk or stoned, it's ok to eat...

Even hampsters and deer get drunk. Have you seen these syrian golden hamsters? Saw a news feed on it recently. So I guess hamsters are off the list of food items..

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:25 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:20 AM, StephenG said:

I mean, a grizzly bear or bobcat or whatever doesn't ponder whether the animal is intelligent before eating it. It just eats it. It's the chain of life?

 

Natural selection etc etc.

nah, but the whole point is we're better than our base instincts. That's the idea behind morality, innit...

I suppose. But... We aren't better than our base instincts. Anything we do is a complex reactionary process to fulfill our basic needs and other pleasure related things given our complex environment.

?

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:20 AM, StephenG said:

At this point, I definitely agree with you.

 

I mean, a grizzly bear or bobcat or whatever doesn't ponder whether the animal is intelligent before eating it. It just eats it. It's the chain of life?

 

Natural selection etc etc.

I'm not sure I was clear. I don't think any animals should be eaten, if you're not eating meat on moral grounds. It shouldn't matter if they're "intelligent" or not. But I like certain meat products too much to commit to that diet, and I'm not exactly a moral (ethical?) person either.

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:33 AM, zaphod said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:20 AM, StephenG said:

At this point, I definitely agree with you.

 

I mean, a grizzly bear or bobcat or whatever doesn't ponder whether the animal is intelligent before eating it. It just eats it. It's the chain of life?

 

Natural selection etc etc.

 

I'm not sure I was clear. I don't think any animals should be eaten, if you're not eating meat on moral grounds. It shouldn't matter if they're "intelligent" or not. But I like certain meat products too much to commit to that diet, and I'm not exactly a moral (ethical?) person either.

No no, I gotcha. I was just responding to your one line " I guess I just don't see the relevance of an animal's supposed intelligence as a grounds to not eat it."

I think we're on the same page

I had 6 maple flavoured sausages this morning. They were fahkin luverly.

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:34 AM, chenGOD said:

I had 6 maple flavoured sausages this morning. They were fahkin luverly.

Were they pork, or turkey? I'm really enjoying the turkey sausage products. They taste AWESOME and are low fat/ 0 trans fat.

pork. and the number of fucks I give about fat is zero.

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:05 AM, StephenG said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular topic yet. On one hand I see what you all are saying RE them being intelligent etc. On the other, I really enjoy eating meat, it tastes great and for my body type, I need it.

 

Also, I think vegetarians/vegans etc reduce plant life to being lesser life forms than animals etc. I'm not sure I understand the logic that one cannot eat animals because they are "intelligent" (not so intelligent to avoid being eaten though?) but vegetables etc which are also life are fair game?

 

I'm probably missing something from the concept. Would be happy if it were explained to me.

Plants lack a central nervous system which is required to detect pain. They also don't "think" in the same way that you and I do. Most vegetarians and vegans are so because they don't want to cause cruelty to other living things. If the life form in question can't feel pain, then cruelty is [arguably] non-existent.

the problem with the vegans not wanting to cause pain thing is that i have yet to meet a single vegan who gives one solitary shit about mexican children being forced into harvesting crops with their families, or migrant workers being exploited and harassed and basically slaving so that some smug asshole can talk about his cruelty free dinner.

drives me NUTS

I only buy local vegetables so I can be the ultimate smug bastard.

  On 4/2/2012 at 7:02 AM, Dan C said:

I only buy local vegetables so I can be the ultimate smug bastard.

filthy hipster!

I eat quite a bit of meat, but I think that veggies and non-meat things with high carbs (bread, candy, fruit etc.) taste better.

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:45 AM, Braintree said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:05 AM, StephenG said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular topic yet. On one hand I see what you all are saying RE them being intelligent etc. On the other, I really enjoy eating meat, it tastes great and for my body type, I need it.

 

Also, I think vegetarians/vegans etc reduce plant life to being lesser life forms than animals etc. I'm not sure I understand the logic that one cannot eat animals because they are "intelligent" (not so intelligent to avoid being eaten though?) but vegetables etc which are also life are fair game?

 

I'm probably missing something from the concept. Would be happy if it were explained to me.

 

Plants lack a central nervous system which is required to detect pain. They also don't "think" in the same way that you and I do. Most vegetarians and vegans are so because they don't want to cause cruelty to other living things. If the life form in question can't feel pain, then cruelty is [arguably] non-existent.

do you think killing is inherently cruel? if an animal is killed in a way which causes no pain, is that still considered cruelty?

Plants can feel pain, we just don't know it because they cannot express it. Every time you cut a tree it cries inside.

I think before we get concerned with the way our food is treated before it dies, there should be more focus on the way a large fraction of the human population is treated. I can have much more sympathy for a person than a walking piece of bacon. Most of us are herded around like animals...

  On 4/2/2012 at 8:15 AM, Boxus said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:45 AM, Braintree said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:05 AM, StephenG said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular topic yet. On one hand I see what you all are saying RE them being intelligent etc. On the other, I really enjoy eating meat, it tastes great and for my body type, I need it.

 

Also, I think vegetarians/vegans etc reduce plant life to being lesser life forms than animals etc. I'm not sure I understand the logic that one cannot eat animals because they are "intelligent" (not so intelligent to avoid being eaten though?) but vegetables etc which are also life are fair game?

 

I'm probably missing something from the concept. Would be happy if it were explained to me.

 

Plants lack a central nervous system which is required to detect pain. They also don't "think" in the same way that you and I do. Most vegetarians and vegans are so because they don't want to cause cruelty to other living things. If the life form in question can't feel pain, then cruelty is [arguably] non-existent.

 

do you think killing is inherently cruel? if an animal is killed in a way which causes no pain, is that still considered cruelty?

I think that killing is inherent in life. One thing must die in order for another to live. It's a vicious cycle. But we as humans should have respect for our sustenance, and limit the amount of suffering. Since plants feel no pain, I think it's okay to kill them. Even when I ate meat, I still thought that veal was wrong. It's a lot of unnecessary suffering. Some suffering is required, regrettably.

I don't think it's wrong to raise your own animals and slaughter them humanely. If you catch and kill something respectively, then I'm okay with it.

On the subject of cruelty, that's a thing that I hinted with my wording. Cruelty, in a traditional sense, is defined as a pain/pleasure ratio. If one cannot feel pain, then cruelty shouldn't be a factor. Although, if something is being exploited and isn't aware, is that still cruelty?

It's a complex question, but I still feel I do better for the environment and my conscience by not eating animals.

nice answer, your ethics are very sensible.

i definitely agree that suffering should be minimized. (though i still don't give a fuck about chickens)

what does everyone think about synthetic meat? unnatural perhaps, but certainly cruelty-free!

That's a lot of fried dicks, bro.

  On 4/2/2012 at 2:07 AM, Boxus said:

  On 4/2/2012 at 12:01 AM, StephenG said:

  On 4/1/2012 at 11:59 PM, Antape said:

  On 4/1/2012 at 11:58 PM, StephenG said:

Maybe we need to reduce the population, not the amount of meat being eaten?

 

lol

 

Really though! The world is grossly overpopulated. We keep trying to fix the negative impact humans have on the planet, might as well just stop it at the source.

 

lol

 

i believe that chickens are born to be eaten and nobody should ever feel guilty for eating a chicken. for cows and pigs i can see why you'd feel sympathetic, and i agree it's terrible the way they're treated, but chickens? chickens are big, stupid, meaty creatures born to stumble into the jaws of a predator. chickens, to any carnivore, are like big juicy grapes on a vine - succulent lumps of flesh which the lifeforce has designed to act as food for other, and more important lifeforms.

 

but i agree they should definitely be treated better before they die. all animals should be treated kindly, and i hope people will realize that. i also hope that people will continue to kill and cook delicious, juicy chickens, in the most kind and respectful manner.

You can't choose what will you be. What would you think about it if you were a chicken? That's just ridiculous. Chickens also produce eggs if you didn't know it.

  On 4/2/2012 at 6:05 AM, StephenG said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this particular topic yet. On one hand I see what you all are saying RE them being intelligent etc. On the other, I really enjoy eating meat, it tastes great and for my body type, I need it.

 

Also, I think vegetarians/vegans etc reduce plant life to being lesser life forms than animals etc. I'm not sure I understand the logic that one cannot eat animals because they are "intelligent" (not so intelligent to avoid being eaten though?) but vegetables etc which are also life are fair game?

 

I'm probably missing something from the concept. Would be happy if it were explained to me.

That's very very simple. Animals are conscious beings, that's it. Just like humans, just a bit dumber (then most). Plants are more similar to machines in this matter than to animals.

(from http://blogs.seattle...mals_becaus.php):

It's Okay To Eat Animals Because They're Total Losers

​Many people think it's immoral for people to eat animals. PETA once went so far as to compare the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust. This outrageous simile is incredibly disrespectful to the victims of that evil tragedy.

If anything in this situation is immoral, it's not the eating of animals. Comparing the processing of farmed meats to Hitler's Final Solution is what's immoral. Besides, it's okay to eat animals--because animals are total fucking losers.

Monkeys, for instance, make excellent jewel thieves, and they can roll barrels at marauding Italian plumbers with particular skill. But they're also assholes. After all, what civilized human would hurl his own shit?

Dogs, too, are losers.

Everyone claims that dogs offer unconditional love, but there are conditions, all right: You wouldn't believe how ungrateful a dog can become after neglecting to feed it for a period as short as three weeks! Plus many breeds of dog are simply retarded: Komondor Dogslook like a janitor's mop; the pug looks like a Chihuahua that someone squeezed too tightly. And Chihuahuas, everyone knows, are Communist sympathizers.

Horses have fucked up teeth, and their majestic sexual prowess embarrasses and confuses many men. Hippos eat too much. Eagles, which while admittedly cool, are too easily killed by a shotgun blast to the face to rightfully be considered a fitting symbol of the USA. And lions might be one of the most powerful creatures on earth, but they, along with AIDS, the tse tse fly, invisible clouds of CO2 gas, and other Africans, kill millions of African people every single year.

Animals even have stupid NAMES: take the Great Tit,for instance. This bird was named by some scientist guy many years ago, when he was trying to impress some chick. "Thou hast such great tits," Carolus Linnaeus said to the Mona Lisa, or whoever it was he was trying to hook up with, "that I shall name this bird after them!" And the name stuck.

Now, it's not the Great Tit's fault that this name stuck. It IS, however, the Great Tit's fault that they didn't try to change their name by doing something rad. Otherwise, maybe today we'd call them the Bomb Defusing Bird, and they wouldn't be included in this list of retarded animals.

If animals were cool, people might feel guilty about eating them, and then PETA would have no need to try to convince people to stop eating them. But unfortunately, animals are pathetic losers and I hate every last one of them (except MY dogs and my dogs only). So chow down, humans, and have no fear.