Slashdot Mirror
PETA Using Games To Spread Its Message
Cooking Mama is a series of games for the Wii and the DS in which players go through a number of steps to prepare meals using a variety of recipes. Last week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) created their own Flash-based parody of the game, highlighting the use of meat products by having a more bloody-minded Mama do things like pull the internal organs from a Thanksgiving turkey. Cooking Mama's maker, Majesco, issued a light-hearted response, pointing out the vegetarian meals in the game. PETA then said they plan to continue making parody games as a way of "engaging the public."
Somehow it would be funny if PETA sponsored Natural Fawn Killers.
Because as long as they aren't doing the whole "domestic terrorism" thing or going after kids while the parents aren't looking I don't really give a damn.
I know my food used to be alive, and I know it had internal organs. Some of them are quite tasty.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
We should respond by releasing a flash game targeted at 8-12 year olds entitled "Butcher Mama," showing a farm-life environment where you have to slaughter and butcher hogs, chickens, cattle, and fish (from a fishery!). Target the age when your grandpappy taught you about farming, and even have such heart-felt phrases like "this is the best part, they dance around after ya kill 'em" that you should be familiar with if you were raised around livestock.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
So I guess a remake of "Duck Hunt" is out of the question?
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
That's it - every time they make one of those parodies, I'm eating a puppy.
Even as a vegetarian, I'll admit peta is out of control.
Vegetables are what food eats.
load "$",8,1
If animals werent meant to be eaten, they wouldnt have been made so tasty.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Of a game that involves showing how sausage is made. I seem to remember hearing that if you ever have seen it made you would never want to eat it.
Of course they would probably make a game of hiding the sausage over and over again too. I fits with their mantra of going naked to draw publicity.
I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
mmmmmm.
PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals
Remember, there's room for all of god's creatures... on the plate right next to the mashed potatoes and green beans.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Of course it would be based on the actual experiences of PETA staffers: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
I'm firmly convinced that PETA want to be to meat, what Gallagher is to fruit. That the tauntaun sequence in Empire is either an erotic, or religious experience to them.
It's the simpler explanation for their utter fascination with graphic displays of viscera in any format they can manage.
In the meantime, I have incisors. Off to eat more meat.
So, I'm playing the game, and I'm enjoying all of the little minigames. It makes me want to go out and pluck a whole bunch of turkeys, and go buy these Cooking Mama games.
PETA, I think it's going to backfire...
Surely someone else on here has the Bullshit episode of PETA. That had to be one of the most aggravating episodes; "We know our insulin/medical shots come from animals, but we are allowed to use them because we are PETA, but no one else can."
I just made it to the end of level 2 on their game. first off, they should at least make the game interesting enough to finish, and secondly, near the end of the butterbal investigation video promoted by the game, you see some guy sit on a turkey for a couple seconds, then it's just fly out and shit. Or at least it seems to be the guts, I'm not positive.
Show PETA a game by some of the giantess fetishists. I'd like to see their reaction to the violent killing of humans.
Defective Logic
As an animal lover - and I mean that in precisely two different ways - I believe that Peta is wrong in its philosophy, and its actions.
First, I believe you can treat animals ethically and humanely without assigning them "rights." Animals cannot claim their rights (as we understand them). If given, they cannot exercise them. (Except, of course, the right to life.)
Second, even though Peta has some right ideas, their love of shock theater can make even sympathetic people cringe. They are at their best when putting up billboards against chaining up dogs. And doing the most good, probably. Flinging fake blood at people, though...
Dark Reflection
The video after you play the game is the best part "Turkeys throats are slit while they're actually ALIVE!!!!!" Ummm, duh, I think that is kind of the point.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare - nothing like stabbing them dogs when they're about to jump ya.
Who think Majesco's decision to laugh it off instead of sic the lawyers was due to PETA's reputation for bordering on domestic terrorism and Majesco just decided they would be better off to avoid any escalation?
Perhaps we need a new PLO - Parody Liberation Organization - to scare the crap out of companies that issue bogus DMCA notices.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Is that if they don't want us killing the animals, they should kill them first before we get to them.
Task Mangler
That anybody still takes PETA seriously. But then, scientology still exists too.
Should I not expect to find any easter eggs?
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
There are a number of arguments against meat and whatever other cruelty to animals, but most of them center on the audience regarding animal cruelty as wrong. Without that basic level of common ground, no further rational argument is possible. Lucky for PETA, many people do have problems with cruel treatment of animals, and with the fact that much of the cruelty is not for any good reason. The question is where to draw the line, and I think that's the only question. PETA and I draw it pretty far back, others will trade lots of animal cruelty for some physical pleasure, stopping I guess just short of bestiality.
So PETA is in the awkward and unenviable position of reminding people of their own moral standards. Not PETA's standards, but the audience's. Most people avoid information about the cruel and inhumane treatment of their meat products. The only explanation I have for this is that they lack the willpower or perhaps the technical knowledge to make the decision they believe to be right. However, I know that slashdot has a ton of tough guys who pride themselves on having absolutely no compassion. Maybe they'll chime in on this post, overcompensating for their meat guilt by describing how little they care and how much they enjoy meat. I already see some of it in the thread, and they're making my point for me.
Over the years, after being asked to defend being vegetarian, I understand PETA's position pretty well. People ask, idly, "why" and expect an answer related to cholesterol or "energy" or some shit. That's not my reason at all. I was raised vegetarian, being from South India, so it's pretty easy for me to be all self-righteous and you can see some of that in this post too. It used to be a lot worse. At some point, how you were raised is not enough of an explanation, and you have to either figure out the real reasons independent of your parents or just shrug it off and start eating meat. So as soon as I even mention pain and suffering, people start the handwaving and cut me off because even though they asked, I'm the jerk for actually telling them. They don't want to make the decision independent of how they were raised, I guess. In fairness, I don't know if I could either.
PETA is, obviously, more militant than I am. Conscience can be like that. As always in these meat posts, I refer the reader to Hard To Swallow, which makes these points in a better way.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
And the horse they rode in on. er Wait.
I personally don't see a clear dividing line between an animal's right to life and a vegetable's right to life. There is a continuum of intelligence, for lack of a better word, from man down to microbe. Humans should clearly have rights because society requires it; beyond that, the decision to protect or purchase is based on an arbitrary value choice.
I'm not being entirely facetious, either; the bits I've read about the lives of plants (i.e. they communicate, actively respond to their environment, and actively defend themselves) puts them about par with some insects IMHO.
Given this, I don't see why PETA types couldn't be attacked from the left, so to speak, on their callous disregard for the feelings of lettuce.
They are a bunch of sick hypocrites with too much money and time on their hands.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
While a bit of a squeamish action if you're not a butcher or farmer or hunter, what message are PETA actually trying to get across? That it's bad to eat meat because it's... from an animal? Kind of redundant.
Okay -- I was being an asshole there. I know full well what they're trying to do, and that is simply to put people off eating meat because its "gross" and "its a doe-eyed living breathing animal". I would like to make my stance known now; I think this reasoning for being a vegetarian is retarded. I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.
Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.
On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Was I the only one who thought that it was actually kind of fun playing the "Gruesome Cooking Mama" games on PETA's site? Completely not their purpose, I know. We're supposed to be so grossed out by the preparation that we skip turkey on Thanksgiving. Instead, I found plucking the feathers, cutting the neck up, etc rather enjoyable (for a short Flash game designed by a group that often goes completely off the deep end).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
This seems to be the sticking point with most non-(seemingly-)dogmatic vegetarians I've met. I cannot understand this magic line that is drawn between 'sensory input->reaction' and 'pain->reaction'. They are one in the same. As humans we empathize with cry of a mammal. Is this not a reason FOR distant far-off slaughterhouses rather than for the removal of a (reasonably) critical fraction of our natural diet?
I'm also a biochemist - I know very well the processes involved. I understand that the pain I feel is simply a much more complicated variant of the sensing done in the amoebas I study.
I fear that this is simply an extension of the anthropocentric view that denies the fact that we are simply complicated versions of everything else - nothing less, nothing more.
I know that many people out there know about maddox, but I'd love to share his classic articles on PETA with anyone who hasn't. Links:
http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi#PETA
and http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill
Help fight spam
Should've ordered 6 near the beginning; the rest are a logical path, that really terminated with 5.
Since we are animals, we strictly require the consumption of other living organisms for survival. You'd have to be awfully extremist to contend that this is unethical -- it's true for all animals. Today, we are capable of subsisting only on plants, though some vitamins and amino acids are a little tricky to get. It is an arbitrary ethical line, though, what organisms we will and will not eat. It's agreed that plants are acceptable and humans are not. Beyond that, it's a fairly arbitrary choice, along with "to what extent are we willing to cause other creatures pain and misfortune?"
I agree that PETA is out of control. They've even been parodied in World of Warcraft as the D.H.E.T.A (Druids for the Humane and Ethical Treatment of Animals), but I must refer back to Genesis in this respect. God gave Adam dominion of all life on the earth to use as he saw fit.
As it stands, this original mandate, before being cast from Eden, allows us to do what we will with these animals. Later, in Leviticus, certain restrictions on diet and deviate sexual practices (bestiality) were later forbidden, but the original mandate was never completely rescinded.
For the record, I am an Animal Control Officer for a local city and have to deal with this issue on a daily basis. I deal with cruelty as it is defined by the State of Texas and have to carry out my duties according to the statues. Some of these are lock-step with PETA's beliefs, but we also have laws in place about vandalism, criminal mischief, breaking and entering, trespassing, burglary, coercion and theft. I find that PETA crosses those lines far too often and I personally regard them as a criminal organization.
PETA has previously handed out graphic pamphlets to school-age children in an effort to convince them that their parents are murderers.
From the pamphlet:
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
"Over the years, after being asked to defend being vegetarian,"
Nobody really cares. It's boring.
Ravi, let me tell you something. I work with a lot of Indian guys. I've turned most of them onto eating meat. Now admittedly, those I've turned them only to the point of eating chicken. But a good 25% I've turned to eating beef.
Nothing better than the Indian dudes coming to my house, watching football (the real kind with guys in pads knocking each other on their collective asses), and me cooking burgers on the grill, and the Indian guys eating burgers and then asking where the tomato and lettuce are.... because they taste good on burgers.
Eat meat is not a moral choice, it's an economic choice.
I promise to try to answer this question in a way that's not preachy. However, I *am* vegan, so filter my post in whatever way suits you.
On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.
While I can't speak for all vegans, the general consensus is that we don't eat byproducts (milk, eggs, honey, etc) from humanely raised animals because it's not freely given. It's still unnecessary exploitation, in our opinion. This is why breastmilk is vegan (it is freely given), but cow's milk is not. I'm quite happy that you didn't come out with the "cows would be in pain if we didn't milk them" argument. I get that one a lot, from people who haven't done much research on biology (this wasn't a dig, I promise).
As for your other points, I'll touch on a couple of them, if you don't mind.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Er... no. Again, in my own personal opinion, it's about reducing exploitation. Would it be ethical to do this to people? Most people would claim that it is not. When one asks why it's okay to kill an animal but not a person, one often gets the answer that humans are smarter. Yet, when you ask if they would treat a mentally retarded person as an animal, it seems to be out of the question.
In general, my stance is that we should grant, to as many beings as *practical,* the "rights" of life and self-ownership. I don't want rabbits to be able to vote, because they're not capable (so far as we know) of agreeing to societal contracts. However, we generally afford those basic rights to anyone.
Frankly, the decision to grant the rights of life and self-ownership to humans only seems a bit arbitrary. At one point there was certainly a practical aspect to this, but I doubt many people (at least in the USA where I am, and many other parts of the world) would be able to claim much hardship if they gave up animal products.
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Again, the objective is "as much as is practical." It's fairly easy to live without eating animals, or their byproducts. As far as I know, it's not at all practical to live without eating plants.
As for the ethics of killing plants: If you're really concerned about it, the best way you could reduce the killing of plants is to stop eating animals. The energy conversion rates are astoundingly bad. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think y
How about...
* Plants don't die when you eat them.
Rarely if ever is a plant consumed from top to root. Pick an apple, the tree will grow another one next year. Pluck an ear of corn, and it'll grow back.
Unfortunately animals don't enjoy that luxury. To get meat from an animal, you usually have to kill it.
However, with plants, you can harvest from them without killing them.
I guess it depends on what you define as sentient.
Whales (dunno), dolphins, and apes? - OK I'm not eating them, as they seem reasonably intelligent.
Dogs - sure, as they are our pets.
Cows, and the rest of their ilk,I gladly eat.
Humans are omnivores, and evolved to eat meat. To say that it's immoral is odd to me, as I (and nor should you) don't pass judgment on wolves tigers, and chimps, as they all eat meat.
..........FULL STOP.
I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.
I present to you the rebuttal of someone who feels the need to defend vegetarians against someone else who proclaims "If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down." but goes on to call us retards and basically try to explain away vegetarianism as foolishness with no real justification.
Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
First your automatically assuming every vegetarian is trying to turn you into one. The fact of the matter is that vegetarians make up about 5-6% of the population in the United States. If there were so many of us so compelled to making you into a vegetarian you'd hear much more about it. The truth is that most of us don't care about you. Secondly, why is it that you feel we should need to explain our choice to you? If it's not hurting you I don't see what say you have in it at all. This goes beyond vegetarians and I can only hope your attitude about other personal choices doesn't result in your need to bash it.
Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.
If it's unethical to pour CFCs and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than it's unethical to eat meat. It increases your carbon footprint. The amount of energy needed to produce meat over grains is extraordinary. Also, these spare grains that could be produced on a reduced carbon footprint could go to fueling vehicles in a green fashion or feed the poor.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat. Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Can we stick with reality here? We don't even need VR to make vegetarianism a legitimate and healthy choice yet you feel the need to combat it. So until this technology exists how about you not being a hypocrite? I'm not even asking you to be a vegetarian but simply don't be a dick to those who choose to be.
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Ever notice that in your little diatribe that reasons 2-5 are the same thing stated in different ways? Do you really need to flesh out your argument that much to feel vindicated? Anyway, no one is really questioning your right to live here. but if you are so logical you must be able to do the math: in order to produce meat you need to feed it grains. most of these gains end up not being part of the final product just as most ore of a metal ends up being waste products. So naturally these grains would be better used in eating them directly. Less grain would need to be harvested to feed the same numbers of people. It's a pretty simple concept.
But let me ask you: If you're not concerned about the debated right of animals and are willing to eat them why do you care if we eat grains?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Probably somewhere along the same lines that civilization used the same magical, arbitrary line to condemn cannibalism and the murdering of children who were born with abnormalities. Let's not be ridicu
Run around collecting cute little stray animals, and instead of trying to find them homes you kill them. Extra points if you collect them by duping their current possessor into thinking you're going to find them homes. The boss level is your trial for the crimes you committed, extra life if you're found not guilty.
You win if in the end the general uninformed public still thinks you love animals.
It all boils down to this: animals hunt and kill other animals to live. It's not evil; it's just how the world is. Nutjobs like PETArds live in a modern society where they don't HAVE to deal with that reality if they don't want to. It's only due to our uniquely privileged place in human history where all kinds of food are abundant that one can turn their nose up at a whole range of foods as an "ethical choice".
Put that same person in a situation where they're genuinely starving to death next to a fat happy cow with no other food around, and their "ethics" will go right out the window. Sure I believe in not making animals suffer anymore than we have to, but it's either a wolf kills and eats them, or I do. One way or another, something's gonna kill that cow, and it won't be evil in the least to kill it if the purpose is for food.
The cow's tasty and I'm hungry. Ain't that a coincidence?
Vegetarians that eat chicken or fish are an absolute cop out. If anyone attempts to convince you there are all these different 'types' of vegetarians walk away.
It's this simple:
Vegetarian doesn't eat meat, but eats animal products (eggs, cheese milk etc)
Vegans don't eat any animal products.
Somewhere along the line all these wanna-be hippies came up with their own labels for different types of 'vegetarians' that eat fish and chicken (or just white meat) so they can then tell people they are vegetarian and give themselves a big pat on the back. This has done nothing but bring a bad name to the rest of vegetarians out there for being cop outs.
I have been a Vegetarian for 11 years (my personal choice because I don't like meat).. everywhere I go now you get people offering fish and chicken.. and then going "oh.. you don't eat fish.. that's strange".. yeah.. no it's not.
While I am on this rant, I will drag in Animal Lib. Being a vegetarian.. people expect me to suppor Animal Lib and their actions. I once joined a Vegetarian society looking for like minded people to share recipes etc, 1 week later I was receiving email spam from Animal Lib groups trying to rally my support for protests. I quickly made it clear that people go vegetarian for a myriad of reasons and not just because of 'animal cruelty'. Even after this they attempted to portray me as someone that was pro-animal cruelty because I didn't want to participate in the protests. Needless to say I am no longer part of the society.
I love being vegetarian, I enjoy what I eat and the great variety of foods I have been introduced to since going vegetarian, unfortunately I get lumped in with the KFC protesters and animal cruelty scare campaigns by the general public.
I actually think PETA's scaremongering tactics harm their cause. If I see a bunch of fanatics waving signs around on the news.. you think I am going to say I support them? even if their cause is valid.
I keep scoring "Too nice". I'm going to have to keep playing this to do better. I want the high score!
You seem to be drawing a line between us homo sapiens, and other animals. Why?
we know, and we don't care. 'education' isn't going to help.
Honestly, the game made me hungry. I went out and ate a big turkey I wouldn't have otherwise.
Also, the people who made this game? Biggest trolls ever. They made it delicious on purpose.
Disregard the above.
We have survived with a small amount of meat for a very long time and evolved to live on it, it is only our relatively recent levels of consumption that catapulted our brain growth. so our species did evolve on mostly plant life for a long time. our consumption of meat made it possible to grow brains and we would not be where we are today with out them, arguably a decent argument against meat.
The day a PETA person walks up to a bear or tiger and convinces it not to eat a juicy raw slab of meat on verbal argument alone, then I might be sold. Until then, not so much.
Also, don't these vegans realize that the only reason livestock is kept around is because they're tasty? If for some reason everyone stopped eating them, they'd be put out to pasture much in the same way horses were when people switched to the automobile. As in "killed off". They're too expensive to maintain when there's no good use for them. The fact that they're tasty and people like eating them is why livestock animals are successful in terms of survival. Remove the human factor for supporting them, and that's not really the case anymore. So much for not eating them, huh?
How about we ignore bronze age mythology and have a rational discussion about this matter?
Care about privacy? Read this!
The argument for vegetarianism is mostly based on how you perceive animals. If you see them as being similar to humans, you're less likely to eat them. You're obviously on the opposite end of that (unless of course you're a cannibal?). It's a difference that is almost impossible to change in someone, so trying to convert people to vegetarianism is almost completely futile. I think PETA is a bunch of self-righteous morons because of this. But so are you. You're trying to put people down for a different viewpoint that cannot be proved or disproved, because it's based on individual's definitions.
The "vegetarians" who eat fish/chicken generally do it for health reasons, or to look good in front of hippie-liberal jackasses without actually giving up meat.
Vegans generally have two arguments, which again are based on personal viewpoints. Some believe animals should not be exploited and imprisoned at all by humans ("Would you want to be kept in a pin and forcefully impregnated all your life so people could drink your milk and eat your babies?"). Others see the dairy and egg industry as supporting the meat industry be sending the calves and dried-up chicken and cows to the slaughter houses.
Again, these are completely based on people's personal views, so putting it down because you disagree will have the same effect as one someone like this calling you a murderer for eating meat.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Would it be okay to do that with a human being? Somehow I don't think you're going to say yes. Why?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
The capacity to feel pleasure or pain. To the best of our knowledge, pumpkins don't have it.
Would it be ethical to do this to people?
I know this may be painful to finally realize, but you are human and are at the top of the food chain. Somehow I think that people who do not want to eat animals are far too in touch with their emotional side or trying to live up to unreachable noble goals.
It IS a personal choice though, and we consumers of non-human meat would appreciate it if you'd treat it that way.
You're funny. You're a troll, but I'll bite.
1. Are you going to encourage your son to eat the neighbour's cats? I hear they taste like rabbit, the little fuckers destroy the local wildlife, why not promote catburgers - cause your son will never EVER get laid when the girls find out he eats cats, and he'll get arrested for causing emotional distress.
2. There are vast tracts of south american rain forest being destroyed for the express purpose of grazing land. Would you like your burger with or without a viable planet in the future?
3. Postulate an imaginary scenario to sidestep being ethical. If we hook your mother up to a VR machine, can we keep her breastfeeding for decades and feed infants in the 3rd world from her? She wouldn't know any different, right?
4. Noone said killing the animal, or plant, or fish, or insect was the problem. It's making them suffer during life and the death phase that most of us "queasy" vegos object to. I got no problem whatsoever killing a chicken, a fly or a cow, done "humanely".
5. There's no magical line that anyone is drawing. Some folk in Asia won't touch lamb, but will eat dog. Some religions proscribe eating pork, there's a 12 course pig eating festival in Switzerland. If someone does or does not want to consume X, what's it to you? Mind your own business.
6. How terribly gracious of you that some of us are not retarded. A little more research and maybe you'll change your mind about the "volume" of meat you consume. It's the quantity that is unhealthy, not just a little meat.
And last, but not least, you're never going to have a rational argument with a vegan in the future either. I've met you and your ilk - your just itching to feel superior in public, and any point of view that doesn't reinforce your prejudice will normally make you grasp for strawmen and make ad hominem attacks. We get tired of you people so fast in our lives, that we learn to shut up and live you in your ignorance - you're not worth it, because you are full of anger. Some of the more radical amongst us have even suggested your anger comes from your unbalanced diet, but there's no point even raising the notion as a proposition, because you don't want to chat, as noted by your tone in your message - you just want to win.
So, go ahead, you won, I hope you feel better and don't bother us "wackos" again. And everyone who is allergic or who reacts badly to any food substance will laugh at you behind your back. We, the human race, are patently not all the same, and lactose intolerance statistics and testimony obviously won't even hit your radar.
I, personally, haven't bothered addressing the short-sightedness you display for such a long time. But as an anonymous coward, I'm prepared to do it once more. Take care - you might offend some people who are very important to you personally.
its about being disconnected from the sources of your food, about being coccooned from the roots of the highly processed products that define your life from infancy, and having no bearings or anchor to the larger, natural world
we eat animals, we evolved that way. if you want to talk morality, that's natural morality. vile horrendous forms of suffering happens every minute on this globe, predators squeezing the air out of animals as they slowly suffocate, bovines having their throats ripped out after a terrifying all out race across the grasslands, baby birds being swallowed alive whole... its all completely normal and natural. what is there to argue with about that?
how we treat other human beings matters, because it forms a basis for human morality. morality is important in the realm of HUMAN interaction, to maintain social coherence and cohesion. if humans break moral codes amongst themselves, they represent dangers to us all that must be punished. this is the reason for human morality
but extending morality outside human-human interaction is some sort of rich isolated child's game
its the kid in their SUV driving by a mack truck hauling pigs and looking in the slats and making eye contact with the swine, and having an auschwitz moment. its contrived, maudlin, self-pitying foolishness from feeble minds unaware of the larger world
we need to care more about human beings in the third world, a million times longer before we even care one tiny bit about some future hamburger. now THAT'S a moral statement
i saw a chick walking down the sidewalk once in manhattan, wearing a t-shir that read "animals are people too"
that succinctly sums up the delusions of peta
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If that is the same Peta that sued the crap out of the poor guy who had set up a Peta parody site, then the Hypocrites club just won a new diamond level member...
Rod Coronado is a madcunt! http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1089803
Reason 6 is horrendously faulty, given that humans have evolved as omnivores, not carnivores OR herbivores. As a result out bodies function best when fed a balanced died containing a good mix foodstuffs, meat included. Something I personally find hilarious is the Raw Vegan movement. Never have a stupider group of people existed. The simple fact of the matter is that the human dietary system has spent the last 1+ million years adapting to eating cooked food (In particular meat, but also vegetables) and at this point relies on food being cooked to a fair extent. This is not to say eating raw food does nothing or should be avoided like the plague. However the simple fact of the matter is that we've evolved to eat cooked food and suddenly deciding that a Raw Food diet is the way forward is not likely to reverse all that time spent evolving to rely on cooked food.
I just want a meat alternative. I eat meat because it tastes good and is filling. I would love to have it grown so that we can end this stupid argument once and for all and I don't have to have an ethical discussion everytime I run to Arby's for lunch.
Not everyone is going to become a vegetarian just because PETA thinks it's "wrong" to kill animals.
Besides... after watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on PETA, PETA appears to be a bunch of hypocritical assholes who are anything BUT "ethical."
Ironically... according to Penn & Teller... PETA *themselves* kill animals and even bomb places that conduct research on animals in order to come up with cures for diseases. How's that for ethical? Fuck them.
How about...
* Plants don't die when you eat them.
Rarely if ever is a plant consumed from top to root.
How about...
* Carrots, onions, radishes, potatoes, beets, turnips, rutabagas, ginger or yams? The entire plant gets dug up during harvest.
Or, how about...
* Lettuce, cabbage or celery? It's not very healthy for the roots when the entire above-ground portion of the plant is chopped off.
Pluck an ear of corn, and it'll grow back.
You haven't seen how crops like corn or wheat are harvested on a modern farm, have you?
P.S.: You are an idiot.
I wanted to be with you on all of that, except that you had to invoke religion. Can't rational arguments be made without it?
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
(You might be like to know this long-time reader just created an account to reply to your post. So... first psot!)
Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason...
To be precise, that isn't a reason to preach vegetarianism. It's a perfectly fine reason to be a vegetarian. I don't eat raisins because I don't like the taste, but I wouldn't demand the same of you. (I'm just being precise, but I know the OP understands this perfectly. S/he says as much in reason 6.)
Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat".
You're right that "its unethical to eat meat" is at the core of this argument, but if you believe eating meat is unethical, then the ease with which you can avoid meat, I think, augments the culpability.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere!
I can't speak on behalf of all vegetarians, but you hit the nail on the head here. It IS unethical to cause suffering, and yes, we are getting somewhere :)
So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes.
Well, I'm a real vegetarian (and a vegan in my own home), and I say yes.
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
I actually have no problem with killing qua killing.
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
There is no magical line. I'd say capacity for suffering goes something like:
Humans > cows > fish > bivalves > trees
This is why I will eat fish on rare occasion*, but I haven't had a hamburger in 14 years.
* - I know, I know, "then you're NOT A VEGETARIAN!" they always scream. I am a vegetarian, but I'm not a social ass. Sometimes they conflict. When my brother and his wife invited me to dinner at their place a few months ago, we compromised with salmon. And you know what happened a decade ago when a kind family invited me to their home in Israel and made me "vegetarian" soup that had bits of chicken in it? I ate it.
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
The perfect human diet would include meat. (Though much, much less than the average American eats.) Having said that, I think I'm very healthy, partly because I have to watch what I eat.
On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind?
I hope this was answered already.
And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources?
Simple: the animals from which we get our eggs and milk lead wretched lives, and we don't want to support the institutionalization of cruelty to animals.
One last thing I should mention for folks to keep in mind:
Being a vegetarian is NOT 100% consistent, and we know it.
It's not just that I eat fish on occasion. I also can't give a great reason for refusing to
some context: birds that migrate, like ducks, will prepare for migration by gorging themselves and storing the accumulated energy in their livers as fat (rather than adipose tissue like us). in other words, while no one is asking the bird's permission, gorging until your liver is bloated with fat is not a horrible alien treatment for a migrating bird, it is actually a natural mode of their life. in other words, forcing a man to grow a 10 pound tumor in his abdomen in nine months sounds like a weird torture, but this is pregnancy that every woman experiences. of course, forced impregnantion is evil, and force feeding is evil. my whole point is simply that this whole gorging until your liver bursts with fat is not really an alien biological experience for a duck
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mmm... cockroach is my favorite. Appetizing. Yours?
No Text.
So I can eat salamander limbs and still be a vegetarian !
* Lettuce, cabbage or celery? It's not very healthy for the roots when the entire above-ground portion of the plant is chopped off.
Weeds tolerate it pretty well.
Pluck an ear of corn, and it'll grow back.
You haven't seen how crops like corn or wheat are harvested on a modern farm, have you?
For the curious: It is mowed after during harvest.
Gary Francione (http://www.abolitionistapproach.com) presents what in my view is the most morally consistent defense of veganism. No real vegetarian eats fish or chicken. The crux of the vegan argument is that there is no such thing as an ethical source of animal products; in all cases an animal is being exploited. The problem isn't with killing in general, or as you said, plants would not be okay. The problem is with killing, or more specifically, exploiting sentient beings. Sure, chickens aren't killed for eggs, but chickens are most certainly exploited in the process, caused to suffer, and all eventually are killed when they cease to be useless. Similarly with dairy, except in some cases with dairy, you have the calves to take care of (i.e. need to sell them as veal).
How come none of you "slashdotters" have considered how amusing "Jack Thompson vs People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" would be?
1) Why don't you eat mentally retarded people?
Please, substitute the subject "mentally retarded guy" (with a mental coefficient near that of a cow) in any of the arguments and you'll see.
2)You can also substitute it with "4 month fetus", obviously a being with much less consciousness than a grown cow.
3)It's always very funny to see how all those 'intelligent' guys around you get angry and begin to express their self confidence about this subject when it is mentioned. Don't cheat yourselves, it's called self defense. I had exactly the same reaction against my first contact with a vegetarian. My (idiot) reasoning was: "are you telling me that my life-habits are wrong? am i wrong? than can't be! can't be, arggggh". And later you realise that they are right and that when you thought you were reasoning, you were in fact just defending your, until that very moment, unquestioned stupid belief (sorry, exactly like any other religious fundamentalist, either muslim or christian
The ticker (50,000 chickens killed since you opened this web page!) on that site makes me hungry for meat.
Eat the rich.
The reason I am vegetarian is because I draw the line at killing things which have more complex brainstems than insects. This is because of a strong belief, but rather a lack of knowledge. It is impossible to know for sure how similar ending the life of an animal is, objectively, (- if that word even has any meaning in this context) to ending my own life. There's no way for me to know what it's like to be a pig. There's no way for me to know what it's like to be you. The question of whether or not I should eat meat is pretty similar to the question of whether or not I should kill people for fun. Most people are not as intelligent as me, if I wished, I could take that as my cue to disregard the value of their life.
Everyone has to draw a line between things that they are happy to kill and things they are not happy killing. Furthermore, there can be no real answers to any of the difficult questions related to drawing such a line.
Since it is not a big problem for me to be a vegetarian, I draw the line where I do. It would be a big problem to draw the line lower, since that would preclude things like killing insects, or, if going even lower, killing plants or even switching off a computer (what are the ethics on that one?!)
Those people who say "I couldn't give up bacon" have never tried. It's not that bad. Beer, curry and pizza can all be vegetarian. I enjoy food a lot, and cutting out meat hasn't been a problem.
I suspect that most meat eating people feel a little bit of moral uncertainty about eating meat. Otherwise I don't think people would act so affronted when I tell them I'm a vegetarian. I always get either someone saying something like "I couldn't be a vegetarian I like bacon too much" or I get people trying to get me to eat meat. The first kind of person I nod and smile and try to shift the conversation elsewhere. The second kind I generally fix my deathstare on and tell them to leave the subject alone. Honestly I just wish people would respect my decision and deal with their own moral issues themselves.
As a side note, the game itself is actually lots of fun, and I enjoyed playing it right up until the point where evil mama becomes good and you have to start cooking tofu. Sod that, I have to do that in real life.
Let me get this straight.
You're a vegetarian/vegan because you're special? Well, pardon me for not noticing right away, mr. I'm-not-like-you-you'll-never-understand-me-because-I'm-a-VEGAN.
A diet is a personal choice. It should never be preached, bragged about or spewed forth constantly. Apart from real health issues, there's no need to be militant about it. I eat meat of all kinds because it tastes good to me, and because I know my body needs the amino acids to function properly and the protein to build muscle. You can almost, but not quite get the same nutrients from a vegan diet, unless your every meal is meticulously planned AND you supplement them with some very specific supplements.
PeTA has done more harm than good to the public view of vegetarians with their insane ramblings, screwed-up world views and doubletalk. Everyone I know have long stopped taking them seriously, especially since their involvement with the ALF.
My sister in law is a vegetarian and is keenly aware of the limitations of a vegan/vegetarian diet. Luckily, she loves fish and is therefore able to skip most of the supplements. She's also the only person I know who actually hits her recommended daily intake of omega-3 fatty acids without supplements. And just to blow your mind: she loves pork roast and gravy and refuses to celebrate christmas without it.
Eat the rich.
You forget that you might be a bit to smart for your own good. The problem with smart people is that they presume other people are the same. They are not.
There are people out there who REALLY think milk comes from the factory. That meat is produced in a machine. They really have no idea where an egg comes from.
I might have lived close enough to farms to know the real deal, to know why the idea of "fresh milk" is so idiotic in ads, but a lot of people have no idea.
These shock videos are needed NOT for people who know where their meat comes from, but for those who don't.
Godwin time perhaps, but did you know that for years after WW2 the holocaust was just not known about. The images of the concentration camp you might be so familiar with just weren't known, not distruted. UNTIL these SHOCK images were distributed the holocaust was unknown, how could people say "Never again" if they never knew it happened?
Sometimes, if you want people to become aware of something, you must shock them first. Show them the truth, because else they just don't know. It ain't just ignorance. The world is complex and filled with information, you can't know everything. If I told you a tsunami killed millions that would mean little to you, if you didn't know what a tsunami is, what killed means or how much a million is. That of course is just basic english, but you can see what I mean, without knowning what something really means, you can't react to it. In the same way, until we see something bad, we can't really feel it.
The simple fact is that shock images work. The fact that you protest about them shows they work. They make people have to face what they are doing. Images of concetration camps FORCED the world to accept it happened. Images of the tsunami disaster forced the world to see the scope of this disaster. And images of diseased livestock being mistreated forces people one way or another to think about where they food comes from.
People that protest about these images seem to me to want to life in their fantasy world where hamburgers come from McDonalds.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I fully support the right for people to decide for themselves what they want to eat, and though I may not be in complete agreement with your definitions of vegan/vegetarian, I agree with the rest of your post.
PeTA has done more to harm the public image of vegetarians than any other group has ever done, and I am saddened to hear that vegetarian societies are being misused for propaganda purposes.
I'm not a vegetarian myself, but I do enjoy veggie dishes (apart from things that are supposed to mimic meat), and I have no problem with not eating meat for a day or even a week. Hell, my favourite pizza is vegetarian. Many times, the dish I find the tastiest or most appealing in our cafeteria at work is the vegetarian option (we have an awesome chef).
Vegetarians need more people like you. Sensible, thinking adults who have made their decision and are completely aware of why they made it.
Eat the rich.
Zaandam, holland. Where most of the worlds chocolate is produced. Do you know what happens if a pipe bursts and chocolate spills on the floor? It is scooped up and put back into the system. Dead bugs on the floor? People who walked in from outside with no real cleaning system except a token one by one entrance? Not a problem, all scoped up with cacoa -mass and put back in, ready to be transported to candy producing factories around the world.
Mmmm, yummy! Trust me, after working there for a while, I didn't eat chocolate for a LONG time. Although that might have something to do with EVERYTHING smelling of chocolate after a while.
Same with slaughter houses. You just never should see how meat is handled. Hygiene is a very abstract concept especially when the customers always wants it cheaper. Steak falls on the floor or has been stuck for a day on a belt? Just put it back in the system. To much hassle to throw it away and might hurt production targets.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
A better question is can rational arguments be made with it? Also, he said he was from Texas. I must assume that he is a steer.
What about the poor microbes swimming about? Best to stick to an air diet.
Ah I love how you ignored most his post and just put the focus on this believe and used it to bash him.
Im sorry fucktard you should eat shit and die.
How bout you stop being a fucktard and eating shit then we can have a rational discussion about this matter?
Im against killing plants, what have they ever done to you.
I see a lot of replies to this AC post crying "Foul, he mentioned religion"
Take a look around you at the rest of the world outside your basement. The majority of the world is religious and follows those "bronze age mythologies" as truth, regardless of what we think of them.
If they are going to use their religion against us, and try to cram it down our throats, the smartest move would be to learn to use it back, both to defend, and protect our beliefs and rights.
I feel it is a right for me to eat meat. No one should have the ability to remove that right from me. If I have to use their own holy books against them, so be it. Get past your own idiology and mental restrictions to look at the place everything has in this world, and listen fairly and with an open mind or you will NEVER rise above their level.
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
I feel it is a right for me to eat meat. No one should have the ability to remove that right from me. If I have to use their own holy books against them, so be it.
And if I *don't* feel it is a right for us to eat meat, it's OK if I also use their own holy books to convince them as such? or doesn't that just perpetuate stupid religious debates, even when the two sides arguing are fuckin' atheists?
As a wise man once said, if something's worth doing, it's worth doing right. And if you're gonna manipulate people's religious beliefs to push your own agenda, we're all better off if you don't say anything at all.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
It used to be that the village idiot was either ignored or publicly ridiculed. Groups like PETA were never a problem when locking people in stocks in the town square was considered acceptable. I wouldn't complain if the stocks found their way back in to fashion.
It's not a rhetorical question. Apply some of your reason and think of how an animal differs from a plant. If you can't think of any difference, then you shouldn't have any trouble eating a diet composed entirely of pumpkins.
If you can think of some differences, you may realize that some promising avenues may include sentience, a central nervous system, and so forth. A fish has a brain and CNS; he or she can learn tricks, guard a territory, and engage in other complex behaviors, thanks to a long-term memory. A pumpkin doesn't generally do those things. Fish react to perceived danger and to pain. Pumpkins don't swim away, usually.
If killing plants still bothers you, you can eat fruit. Fruit is "intended" by the plant to be eaten by animals. That is why fruit is nummy. Num num num.
Citation needed, yourself. Chimpanzees are mainly frugivores. We probably were, too. A number of modern raw foodists eat mainly fruit and tender greens. In America, primary killers are heart disease and cancer; rates for both decline as meat is displaced by plants in the diet. Dr. Dean Ornish has clinically proven that his vegan/vegetarian diet can reverse heart disease. Google him.
No vegetarians eat fish or chicken. Fish and chicken are not vegetables.
Perhaps that's because you believe fish and chicken are vegetables, and that a fish is the same as a pumpkin. I'm sorry to say that the evidence for clear thinking is not overwhelmingly stacked in your favor at the moment.
Asked and answered -- note your use of quotes around "ethical". This is an old FAQ but it explains how each animal product is produced:
http://www.flashback.se/archive/vegan_l.html
Would you eat a human? If you're going to say that there's no difference between a pumpkin and a fish then you have to say there's no difference between a fish and a human.
I happen to love meat, but I wanted to point out that "ethical" means different things to different people. You apparently draw your line at humans, some people draw it at fish, some people draw it at red meat, and some people draw it at animal products. Personally, I'll eat any meat except dogs and horses.
You claim that "it is unethical to eat meat" is an invalid argument, it's as valid as your rebuttal: "no it's not." Ethics is almost completely arbitrary.
So they disapprove of the Cooking Mama series. Would they rather I take up cooking animals for real, thereby causing even more animals to suffer (by their logic), or that I "get my fix" through gaming?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
It's worse than vegans needing a huge array of vegetables. No plant produces vitamin B12, so vegans have to get it from some really odd sources, such as yeast extracts. It can be done, of course, but humans really do need to eat animals to live well.
I like my beverages with warning labels!
feel the third, fourth, fifth teeth out from the middle. feel that? the pointed jagged quality?
those are called your canines
you're a carnivore
you eat meat
that's your nature
natural morality has absolutely zero problem with that fact. that cow in the pasture is a bovine. grass grazing creatures going back to the dinosaurs and to the ocean life before the dinosaurs have died horrible terrifying deaths every second going back billions of years simply to fill a carnivore's stomach. for eons of time beyond which you can comprehend, before anything resembling homo sapiens remotely existed, this is the way it was, and is, and will be
who are you to judge against that?
stop extending human morality on to creatures that are not human
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
IMHO, that temporary fad of evolution is worth reversing. The farmland we waste ro raise livestock could be securing everyone with plentiful food.
We retain the ability to eat plants, and a unit of farmland covered with food plants, can feed 10..40 times more people than the same unit growing meat.
Eating meat is thus somewhat inefficient. It may also be less healthy.
But most importantly, plants are known to lack a neural system, which is considered to limit their ability to suffer. Some plants even manufacture tasty and colorful fruit, which they evolutionarily "intend" to be eaten. Show me an animal which does that.
Yes, plants are fully and completely alive. But given our inability to eat anorganic substances, eating them sure seems more ethical than eating animals.
> I must refer back to Genesis in this respect. God gave Adam
> dominion of all life on the earth to use as he saw fit.
Umm, before you cite Genesis in support of your ideas, maybe you should read Genesis more carefully so you can get your citations right. God instructed Adam to look after the animals, but he gave him plants for food. Adam was a vegetarian. Genesis is very clear on this point.
Animals *were* given as food also, but not until the time of Noah (i.e., hundreds of years later) and even then one of the conditions was that you not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it, a restriction many people today no longer observe.
Later, even more dietary restrictions were placed on the Jewish nation, such as not eating pork, but those things never applied to Gentiles, unless they became proselyte Jews. The instructions given to Noah apply, presumably, to the entire human race, since we're all descended from Noah.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I do understand this point of view. I absolutely hate it when people try to force their views on me... religious ones, for example. The difference, I feel, is that I can show measurable harm (ie. suffering of the animal) as a consequence of the thing I'm trying to prevent.
Anyway, that aside, I'd ask you to at least try to understand why someone else might be trying to treat it like it's *not* a personal choice. Consider the person who feels that an animal life is nearly, or exactly as valuable as a person's life. They feel that keeping livestock is like kidnapping... that butchering is as bad as human murder. If your neighbor was keeping human hostages, I suspect you wouldn't defend their actions as a "personal choice." Basically, just because you *can* do something, doesn't make it "right" to do it. If someone else tried to deny you your basic rights, you probably wouldn't feel it was just a "personal choice" that they were making.
Also consider that most vegans were not born vegan. In fact, I suspect that many vegans (myself, at the very least), were quite anti-vegan before we started down this path. It often takes very strong influences (emotional, scientific or otherwise) to change so fundamental a habit.
This said, I've been fairly convinced (by a very smart friend) that the way to get more people to go along with the better treatment of animals is to develop synthetic meat, milk and eggs. It's just a more practical solution than trying to get everyone to see my own views, which will probably never happen anyway. If it's not economically practical to raise real livestock compared to growing a steak in a lab, it seems like the problem will mostly solve itself.
that cow in the pasture is a bovine. grass grazing creatures going back to the dinosaurs and to the ocean life before the dinosaurs have died horrible terrifying deaths every second going back billions of years simply to fill a carnivore's stomach. for eons of time beyond which you can comprehend, before anything resembling homo sapiens remotely existed, this is the way it was, and is, and will be
who are you to judge against that?
stop extending human morality on to creatures that are not human
touch your top front teeth. feel the third, fourth, fifth teeth out from the middle. feel that? the pointed jagged quality? those are called your canines. you're a carnivore. you eat meat. that's your nature. natural morality has absolutely zero problem with that fact
i mean, why don't we stop having that "temporary fad of evolution" called sex? its messy, it spreads disease, we can raise people in vats instead, so its unnecessary, and besides, it hurts peoples feelings and creates suffering
well i can think of a good reason not to stop having sex: its our nature
like being a carnivore is our nature
now, you go ahead and fight that rock of gibraltar of a fact, good luck to you. when you are done stopping people from eating meat, you should argue against tides and the rising and setting of the sun. you'll have the same track record i think
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think that people who do not want to eat animals are far too in touch with their emotional side or trying to live up to unreachable noble goals.
Unreachable in what fashion? It's a fact that we do not eat meat. As a vegetarian that is my goal. Mission accomplished!
Also, you call it emotional. I call the eating of meat a throwback to the old Judao-Christian morality. It's a false cause.
It IS a personal choice though, and we consumers of non-human meat would appreciate it if you'd treat it that way.
Just as we'd appreciate your ilk to not bash us and taunt us about our own choice. I see tons of anti-vegetarian posts modded up here. Where was the respect and consideration when you read those and didn't challenge the asshattery of those posts? If anything the vegetarian element has been the reasonable one through out this conversation.
PeTA directly bankrolls and is repeatedly under investigation for their links to/shared members with ALF (Animal Liberation Front) actions, including arson, theft, vandalism, assault, and other similar crimes.
Their position is that meat-eating is equivalent to Hitler's holocaust and that they must wage a multi-pronged war (PR, violence, resistance ala French Resistance) to fight it by any means necessary.
I dated someone very much on the inside of this organization who was inside their organizational structure as a paid regional administrator.
They are not only not nice, they are quite simply dangerous. They don't just want to convince your teenagers to not eat meat; they want to sign them up to "volunteer" at local rock concerts and fairs passing out flyers, and once they volunteer and arrive, they will spend the day (or days) trying to convince them that it is their moral duty to get involved in "actions" in the middle of the night wearing balaclavas and committing crimes.
Teens tend to get involved because it makes them feel important, like warriors or secret agents or something... and then when they get arrested and deny any instructions from PeTA it's easy to have them written off as overenthusiastic radical loose-nut juvenilles in need of better parental supervision, etc.
It's domestic terrorism, and inside the organization amongst "friends," they're rather proud of that. They honestly feel that they'll be seen in the future as the French Resistance is seen today.
Aside: I broke up with the person in question some years ago now. She had started to question my trustability and loyalty on the one hand and I started to get questions from law enforcement on the other. I began to fear for my personal safety, from both directions and decided I was nuts to get any more involved with the person in question. I broke all ties and moved across the country.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering
I raise a similar point with many vegetarians ; if you could have vatgrown cloned meat that was identical to the "real" stuff, would you eat it? Most of those I speak to say yes.
Are they going to do a clubbing baby seals one? I always wanted to try that in the comfort of my own home, and shipping from Alaska is a bitch! They're always dead when they arrive. Personally I think the shipping guy might be clubbing them before they get here. Either that or maybe I should spring for overnight one of these days...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
there is a difference between natural morality and human morality. that's exactly what i said above
please make a note for your future reference: a turkey is not a homo sapiens
natural morality for animals, human morality for humans. is there anything remotely confusing about that to you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's time they consult Dr. Cornwallis. Only he can guide them.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
There are well-known and well-documented health risks associated with consuming your own kind. It increases disease transmission by an order of magnitude. I'm not allowed to give blood because there is some risk that I have vCJD, because I ate a cow that ate another cow.
However, I would be perfectly comfortable with eating lab-grown, guaranteed safe human flesh, a la test tube beef (where they grow the tissue only using a cloning-like process).
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
As a meat-eater, please let me point out one other argument that I respect:
It is possible to sustain yourself on vegetables with less total environmental impact than eating meat. You'll probably want a citation for that, but I'm too ADD to provide you with one. Something to do with the number of hectares to support a cow, vs. the number of people you could feed with soy from the same sized plot.
And that doesn't even take into account the cow-burps adding to the greenhouse effect.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Raising meat in the quanities that western society eats it in is very inefficient.
The majority of agricultural land in the US is given over to beef production, either for the cows or the crops they eat. A 1/4 pounder requires enough land for 36 pounds of potatoes. For each acre of land growing vegetable matter for people, there are 14 acres growing hay for cows.
When people used to raise meat, it was because the meat animal could convert plant matter that would otherwise be inedible into something useful ; in addition, the animal is doing a lot of the work - roaming the pasture harvesting plant matter - all of which the farmer no longer has to do. It's like having a pool of cheap farm labour that you eat at the end of the season. So while meat production was still not efficient it was a way of raising output without needing extra arable land and farm labour.
Cut to today ; no-one has to starve, vegetable crop yields are enormous because of modern agricultural technologies. The output of vegetable agriculture is far greater than required to support the human population because most of it is specifically being grown for the cows.
From a Darwinian viewpoint, the cows are incredibly successful, as long as they continue to be heavy, meaty, and delicious. You could consider them a parasite on human society.
Now, I like beef. But I could stand to eat less of it. And I already eat far less than the average American. (UK, 17.3 Kg/y vs USA 30.4 Kg/y, 1995 figures). That statistic right there is very revealing. The UK, an affluent western nation, eats approximately half the beef.
Imagine if the USA ate half the beef, which seems reasonable, since the UK can do it. Suddenly all those statistics above become shocking - you free up six times the current area of arable land being used for human-consumed crops (we'll assume that we had to claw one of the seven multiples back to grow soy or something to replace the beef). So you could feed a population about five times the size of the USA population in grand (vegetarian) style, that's around the population of China, about 1.3 billion people.
Or ....
* (well, maybe not ; some figures would be helpful. If you can do it with 4% of the Arizona desert and some pond scum though...)
They created a video game full of blood and gore? A video game? In 2008, they created a video game full of blood and gore, with the aim of convincing people that is a bad thing?
Did they bother to visit a game store, or even a movie theater before wasting their time? Do they realize that today's audience expects to see realistic blood splatters when a game victim is shot in the back of the head?
I always thought PETA people were insane, but I didn't imagine they were this clueless.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
People Eating Tasty Activists
PETA has to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Check back in 25 years when the movement is at the stage that gay rights are at now.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
That's worse! You're eating baby apple trees! Baby eater!
As a famous man once said:
It's okay to eat fish
Cause they don't have any feelings.
Agreed. Speaking as a vegetarian, whenever I hear PeTA, I first cringe and then think, "What did they do now?"
Hate to break it to you, but those definitions (doesn't eat meat or fish) are pretty basic ones, and it bothers a LOT of vegetarians that the word is getting corrupted.
I'm glad your cafeteria is good, mine isn't so much. I asked if the vegetable lasagna was vegetarian and they looked at me funny and said "It should be on the sign, it says vegetable lasagna." I had to try to explain to them that "Vegetable != Vegetarian".
You should take PETA seriously because they equate farming animals with the Nazi Holocaust. If you came across a concentration camp then, ethically, it'd be OK for you to kill the guards to liberate the captives. Never mind that the guards are just following orders, sometimes you have to fight for freedom.
Publicly PETA try to have it both ways by arguing that animal slaughter and the holocaust are equivalent but that doesn't mean anyone has to kill the people involved in the mass slaughter. Privately, however there are many videos of senior PETA officials taking their argument to it's only rational conclusion.
PETA are far out bonkers and the only reason people aren't more afraid is because they're not organised enough for a proper paramilitary effort. I don't doubt they're heading in that direction though, their values compel them to act.
Nick
The ALF is basically the paramilitary wing of PETA. All senior ALF members are also senior PETA members. It's a false distinction they use for propaganda and plausible deniablity purposes. This is common amongst all political terrorist organisations, e.g. IRA / Sinn Fein.
Nick
Plants don't have nerve tissue. They don't feel pain, hence they do not suffer. Fruit is made for the sole purpose of being eaten, to disperse the plant's seeds. Didn't you ever take a biology class?
Now, it IS exceedingly difficult to live healthy on just plants. Not to mention horrible-tasting. I'd like to consider myself vegan in "spirit," but not in practice. Two meals tops per week with some good solid portion of meat, and then only from sources that I can believe don't make their animals suffer in wretched conditions. No, labels like "free range" and "grass fed" don't mean a damn, but farmers' markets are a good place to start. Plus it's that whole, "buying local, good for the environment" thingy.
I'm sorry, but just because you've never had a rational conversation with a vegan doesn't mean that YOU can't engage in some rational thought yourself. You obviously have a computer. Use Google and look this stuff up, from good sources, and try to understand instead of just making yourself look ridiculous.
I clicked "+1 Insightful" and for some reason it assigned it as "-1 Redundant" -- posting to remove moderation.
Wht... you mean at the point that they've shouted for so long and so loud that the public begins to believe the lie that an amoral choice is the same thing as a human right?
Ya, they're nuts, but you're belief in an invisible being that cares on which days we eat pork is perfectly rational.
God gave Adam dominion of all life on the earth to use as he saw fit.
Why can't we kill humans, then?
I'm by no means a peta insider, but I would certainly hope that they don't condone such activities. What its members do doesn't necessarily represent the organization as a whole.
I haven't seen a anyone say anything here about becoming a vegetarian for environmental reasons.
The meat-eating lifestyle is environmentally unsustainable.
Quick factoids from Wikipedia, for instance:
Chicken curry, lamb vindaloo, you're making me hungry.
If you're worried about humane treatment then kill your own food. Physically we are omnivores, no denying it. Vegetarianism is the act of figuring out how to make your body survive minus an entire class of foods it is adapted to.
"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."
Animals have at least one desirable quality that plants don't have, even if they have a horrible conversion ratio -- animals don't die off when it becomes winter! Oh, sure, many plants don't either, but you're usually not eating said plants then. Harvest season on Bessie is whenever Joe Sixpack Farmer decides he's hungry. This is less of a benefit in modern (refrigeration) society than in the past, but still significant in many parts of the world.
I have to also wonder how different the world would be if all humans were vegan. Utopia or distopia? I'm thinking there are at least a few aspects of the latter -- a lot of the nature preserves in this country where hunting is allowed probably wouldn't exist. Nobody would have a reason to want to preserve them.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
but i think you will find that your lifestyle doesn't have any legs. that is, to convince people who currently eat meat, to not eat meat. i think where you are different is you can cut it out of your diet, and its no big deal. well, there are also people who are asexual, that is, they don't have sex. its easy for them, but such people are hardly the majority. most of us crave sex. most of us crave meat. in other words, you are making a cool logical rational argument against a prime directive, a bit of evolutionary programming in most us to crave meat
again, for you, its been easy to get over that. likewise, for a few, not having sex is easy too. but for most of us, these very human compulsions are insurmountable, and pretty much define the human condition. so all of your well-crafted arguments carry no weight. logic and reason do not defeat the stomach. all of your reasoning, taken together, does not provide much real incentive to ignore what the stomach asks for, and has been getting, since before we were even human
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
move along nothing here for you to see
"to what extent are we willing to cause other creatures pain and misfortune?"
Personally as much as required and no more, gratuitous violence and cruelty does not benefit the meal.
Theres an interesting parallel regarding human executions, at least in the civilized western world and when there is a reason for them it is assumed they will be done painlessly and not cruely.
Ive also heard arguments going the other way, saying that Lions or other carnivores only eat what they need to and we do not need to eat meat or the methods we use are cruel and unnatural.
But anyone who has seen a cat toying with its prey knows that killing for sport, and even torturing is perfectly natural.
oblig gerber ad
call me FOSS im the boss with the sauce and the source
It isn't very ethical to fly fruits and vegetables around the world so supply your diet with enough nutrients to make up for the lack of meat.
Aren't you concerned about global warming and the effect it has on polar bears and other critters?
But I guess being part of the richest demographic in the history of humanity lets you pick and choose which moral/ethical choices fit your lifestyle.
Not eating meat is not and has never been an option to a vast number of people, especially in colder regions where you can not live year round on the available vegetable matter.
I'm not sure how your comment got modded up as "Insightful" as it's not very difficult to come out on top when you're arguing against yourself. ("Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes.")
Anyway, I'll respond with why I choose to be vegan.
As for eating animal products from ethical sources, I don't think the "payoff" is worth the effort needed for me to convince myself that something was produced in a way that I would be okay with. I guess what it comes down to is what the individual judges as ethical production; that obviously varies from person to person. I do know vegans who will eat eggs from their chickens. There are also many who will eat animal products if they've been thrown away so as not to contribute to the production of those items.
It's actually much harder to come up with reasons not to be vegan.
So because one person recites religious ties to animal life, you target all religions as "cramming religion" down your throats? I wasn't aware that anyone was pointing a gun to your head making you read it. I view and believe science articles and am still religious and the two actually do compliment each other in ways. But it's extremists on both sides - like you and those people "cramming" it down your throat, that hurt the argument for either side. Quit thinking in absolutes like a Sith.
But back on topic, "ethical" doesn't preclude killing an animal. There are quick ways of killing animals that are practice in, at least, most North American farms (not that many farms still kill livestock these days) and slaughter yards. I believe that animals should be treated with some respect, yes, but that's not slashing puppies' throats like happened recently in the news where I'm located. Or drowning a bunch because they came out the wrong color.
And PETA's "shock value" seems odd. It would turn a lot of people away - away from PETA as well. I'm surprised they didn't launch an all-vegetarian parody instead, showing healthy ways to get what little protein you can from a vegetarian diet.
Okay -- I was being an asshole there. I know full well what they're trying to do, and that is simply to put people off eating meat because its "gross" and "its a doe-eyed living breathing animal". I would like to make my stance known now; I think this reasoning for being a vegetarian is retarded. I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.
Chill out, Dude.
Just some friendly advice from another non-vegetarian. I hope you were just venting, but you won't be going on many dates with the opposite sex unless you can learn to keep your contempt for vegetarians or veggie-wannabes to yourself.
Also, so you want someone from the other side to make the case that eating animals is unethical. Fair enough, but what's your stance on eating humans? Is that ethical? If not, why not?
I do think that the sanctity of life is overrated: I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, and atheist. And I love animals, especially when they are barbecued or broiled.
No matter how well-constructed and rigorously thought out an ethical system is, at some point it is based on arbitrarily deciding that some thing is right or wrong, or desirable or undesirable. In other words, "squeamish stomach" lays at the foundation of every possible argument for or against anything. If you despise people for making such judgements, then you are despising them for having any kind of value system - assuming you are consistent, of course - and are thus in fact advocating nihilism.
Given that you are a nihilist or a hypocrite, I really don't think you're in a position to despise anyone.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Now personally, I like meat and don't have any problems eating it. I do however attempt to eat more free range, wild game, etc than "farmed" animals and I probably eat less meat than 10 years ago. I almost must admit that I really respect your decision to become a vegan. I'm sure it was a long road.
Because as long as they aren't doing the whole "domestic terrorism" thing
They are. They say it's just their members, but that's like Sinn Fein saying they didn't bomb, it was the IRA.
or going after kids while the parents aren't looking I don't really give a damn.
Using video games would probably reach children directly and, even though this shouldn't be the case, there probably won't be much parental oversight. Most parents will just see a flash game featuring animals.
PETA believe that anyone who is involved in the use (even keeping pets) of animals is equivalent to a Nazi. That's not an overstatement or a strawman, it's exactly what they believe. The only thing someone who honestly believes a holocaust is being perpetrated can do is hope to have the courage to fight to stop it. Because they've made the basic mistake of thinking human rights = animal rights a lot of PETA members believe violent struggle is needed.
So, whilst they're not really a threat now they have the potential to be. They're well funded by clueless celebrities and so have the potential to win over lots of new recruits with their propaganda. Anyone who uses or produces any animal products whatsoever should be wary; whenever PETA is mentioned we need to spread the message that meat != murder.
Nick
While a bit of a squeamish action if you're not a butcher or farmer or hunter, what message are PETA actually trying to get across?
Their message is that anyone who is involved in the exploitation of animals in any fashion whatsoever is equivalent to a Nazi and is participating in a horror worse than the Nazi Holocaust.
I was going to do that smartarse thing where each word linked to a damning indictment of PETA and their lunatic values but there's just too much of it. Google PETA Holocaust and see the madness for yourself.
Nick
not in the least. this is the fundamental failure of the animal rights groups: "animals are people too". no. they simply are not. this is a divide across which communication ceases if you continue to put forth that absurdity
i understand where you are coming from: its an extension of empathy onto nonhumans. which makes sense in away, animals are popular in childrens books and films, for example. and we are after all animals ourselves. and empathy is actually one of mankind's greatest strengths (animals for example, don't have it)
but its really not an arbitrary drawing of the line in the sand. saying drawing the line at the end of our race is the same thing as drawing the line at the end of our species is like saying drawing the line at shoplifting is the same thing as drawing the line at genocide. no. many orders of magnitude in terms of scope and scale of difference
the problem is, we eat them, and the fact that we eat them is something implicit in our physicality, our biochemistry, and our natural evolutionary history. that's kind of a big deal. and not something you are simply going to dispel with a rosy feelgood simpleton's morality
sure, you'll recruit children to the cause, because it is a childlike simplistic morality that can consider eating animals to be bad. but an adult understands some deeper nuances about what we are as human beings that rosy one dimensional morality does not address. such as: the compulsion to eat meat overwhelms all higher mental faculties
for example: you can make a reasonable argument to a teenager why they shouldn't have sex. the teenager can even agree and understand. and then they'll get in the backseat of a car two hours later and go at it like jackrabbits. because the compulsion exists in greater force and overwhelms any judgments we make. its about what we are: sexual beings. that can't be reasoned with and explained away, it just is, and always will be, and implicit behavior about what and who we are, deeper and higher than any higher faculty can ever muster
likewise, you could convince me not to eat meat. i'll understand the argument, and feel the empathic draw. but then i'll go get a hamburger. because i'm a carnivore, and this is what i crave, and the higher mental faculties simply don't veto or control that compulsion
this is what you are up against. if you belittle this observation, you will fail. if you take this observation very seriously, then you will begin to understand what you are really up against when it comes to meat eating. sure, some people, like you, can do without. just like a few oddballs can go easily without sex. but outliers do not define the human condition
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
feel back to the third, fourth, fifth tooth on either side out from the middle
feel that? the pointed jagged quality?
what those teeth are called is: your canines
animals with canines eat meat. they are for grasping and tearing animal flesh. those teeth are shaped like that in your mouth because you have evolved in the natural world to subsist on animal flesh
you're a carnivore
you eat meat
that's your nature
go ahead and argue against that all you want. doesn't matter what vast castles of logic and reaosn and empathy and persuasion. you're still a carnivore. a lion cannot convince itself it is a grazing animal. a shark cannot convince itself that it eats algae. it is the way you are made by god or evolution or the fsm (ramen) or for whatever reason you want to ascribe the truth of your existence, but it IS the truth of your existence: you are made to eat meat
you. are. a. meat. eating. animal. you are made to do that, to be that. accept reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
>Animals *were* given as food also, but not until the time of Noah (i.e., hundreds of years later) >and even then one of the conditions was that you not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it, a >restriction many people today no longer observe.
Didn't either Cain or Abel keep livestock? At any rate I think you're wrong about not eating meat until noah.
Not that any of it matters anyway.
Yeah man! That's a lotta nuggets! MMMmmmmmm...
You should register an account, as I'd have modded you informative for that ;)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Troll != I don't agree with you
Quit abusing mod points. You know who you are.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
I hadn't heard this one before. It's easy to refute though, I think...
1. You're forgetting the types of commonly eaten veges that are killed upon consumption; root vegetables and the like. If your argument were to hold up then vegans wouldn't be eating them, but they are.
2. I highly, highly doubt that you would be in support of surgically and painlessly removing limbs or flesh from animals for consumption.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
I was going to respond to this before I realised you're either getting a little too worked up about this, or you're an excellent troll. Kindly do not fop off my points with "that's ridiculous" and kindly do not twist my words into what they're not. Also kindly do not change the definition of vegetarianism without first consulting all vegetarians.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
An animal would happily eat a human, so I don't really think it's out of bounds for humans to eat animals.
I mean, if you chopped people up and mixed it into animal feed, well, animals like cows and chickens (Not to mention dogs and cats) would still eat it.
I think you mispelt "I'm a troll" on the first line of your post, there.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
In my first point, I think I should have bolded If, as it's getting misunderstood. Perhaps it's just a redundant sentence.
I'd like to refute your answer to reason 5. A biologist replied to me somewhere and he's right. Here, I'll quote him:
This seems to be the sticking point with most non-(seemingly-)dogmatic vegetarians I've met. I cannot understand this magic line that is drawn between 'sensory input->reaction' and 'pain->reaction'. They are one in the same. As humans we empathize with cry of a mammal. Is this not a reason FOR distant far-off slaughterhouses rather than for the removal of a (reasonably) critical fraction of our natural diet?
I'm also a biochemist - I know very well the processes involved. I understand that the pain I feel is simply a much more complicated variant of the sensing done in the amoebas I study.
I fear that this is simply an extension of the anthropocentric view that denies the fact that we are simply complicated versions of everything else - nothing less, nothing more.
I didn't get around to this, but I guess this is as good a place as any: my reason for eating meat is that I want to eat meat and it outweighs the two possible arguments I know against eating meat. The first is that it's bad for the environment... I'm weak like that. The second is that some people believe it's bad for you (it probably is in too great a quantity), but I don't subsribe to it and there's plenty of people who would claim the opposite.
Furthermore, I believe any base ethical argument for or against eating meat is completely fluid and arbitrary in its nature. Don't eat this type of life, eat that type of life. Don't cause animals pain; cause plants pain instead. The only line I'd draw is between those who have the cognetive functioning to value the basic rights of life, and those that can't (if that makes sense, it's difficult to convey in a sentence) and even that is pretty damn arbitrary.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
And last, but not least, you're never going to have a rational argument with a vegan in the future either. I've met you and your ilk - your just itching to feel superior in public, and any point of view that doesn't reinforce your prejudice will normally make you grasp for strawmen and make ad hominem attacks. We get tired of you people so fast in our lives, that we learn to shut up and live you in your ignorance - you're not worth it, because you are full of anger. Some of the more radical amongst us have even suggested your anger comes from your unbalanced diet, but there's no point even raising the notion as a proposition, because you don't want to chat, as noted by your tone in your message - you just want to win.
The hypocrisy within this statement is breathtaking.
Parent was me, somehow the post lost my user info during previewing?
I didn't get around to this, but I guess this is as good a place as any: my reason for eating meat is that I want to eat meat and it outweighs the two possible arguments I know against eating meat. The first is that it's bad for the environment... I'm weak like that. The second is that some people believe it's bad for you (it probably is in too great a quantity), but I don't subsribe to it and there's plenty of people who would claim the opposite. Furthermore, I believe any base ethical argument for or against eating meat is completely fluid and arbitrary in its nature. Don't eat this type of life, eat that type of life. Don't cause animals pain; cause plants pain instead. The only line I'd draw is between those who have the cognetive functioning to value the basic rights of life, and those that can't (if that makes sense, it's difficult to convey in a sentence) and even that is pretty damn arbitrary.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
That would be perfect and I really do believe that's where we're heading.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
I actually had that argument in my head, I guess it fell out somewhere :). It's an excellent position to take and I can respect someone who ethically doesn't eat meat because of its impact on the environment. However, in my experience, it's a rational argument to not eat meat that obscures the vegetarian's real base moral decision to not eat meat.
This can be tested; simply ask this person "so if we got to the point where raising cows was just as environmentally friendly as growing corn, it'd be okay to eat them?". If they say yes, shake their hand. But I don't predict you'll be shaking many hands.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
I never mentioned fruit. The discussion on pain is handled elsewhere in this thread... by a biologist no less ;)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1040979&cid=25890329
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
Emphasis on "If". But you go ahead and skim read.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
i have nothing against vegetarians, i just chose to get my protein from animals, i am an avid outdoors man and a conservationist, although i hunt i am always sure of my shot before i shoot. why can't Peta do the same with their propaganda before targeting today's children and adolescence. Why must they say "all" farms raise animals in horrid conditions, when in actuality that is only a percent of a percent of farms who treat their live stock that way. couldn't Peta have pulled this stunt a year ago so Jack Thompson could try to make their lives a little more difficult. IT IS TIME FOR PETA'S PROPAGANDA TO STOP!
I love PETA. Mostly because they don't quite realise just how crazy they look :)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Reason Number 4 already fails, so going into 5 is redundant. :)
Flora and Fauna are very different. When is a Plant dead? Not so easy to answer huh? I can easily cut of the top edible part of a plant and leave the root alone and the plant will be fine, cut a cow in half, not so much
This argument is as old as vegetarian and is just a cop out.
>> This is why breastmilk is vegan
You owe me a new keyboard and a nice tall glass of breastmilk.
there is a difference between natural morality and human morality
which is exactly what i said above
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Jesus Christ you're retarded...
"While I can't speak for all vegans, the general consensus is that we don't eat byproducts (milk, eggs, honey, etc) from humanely raised animals because it's not freely given."
That's not the general consensus, in fact there isn't one. There are many reasons,. almost all of them based on misinformation or superstition.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It isn't very ethical to fly fruits and vegetables around the world so supply your diet with enough nutrients to make up for the lack of meat.
Aren't you concerned about global warming and the effect it has on polar bears and other critters?
But I guess being part of the richest demographic in the history of humanity lets you pick and choose which moral/ethical choices fit your lifestyle.
Not eating meat is not and has never been an option to a vast number of people, especially in colder regions where you can not live year round on the available vegetable matter.
To answer your first question, I think it is undesirable to eat things that have to travel a long way in order to get to you. However, this seems like a separate issue, and one that can be avoided by purchasing local produce. As far as I know, there isn't much that I eat that can only be grown halfway across the world.
While it may be true that for some of the world it's not a practical option, I suspect that it *is* a viable option for most of the people reading this board. And frankly, even if there are some people who can't practically be vegan, that's not a reason that the rest of us can't be.
By the way, buying plants to eat is often cheaper than buying animal products. It's the other way around if you're talking about heavily processed vegan food, because there's less demand for it. This is one of the reasons I cook.
I'm not quite sure why you made the assumption that I don't buy locally grown produce when I can. Do you?
I have to also wonder how different the world would be if all humans were vegan. Utopia or distopia? I'm thinking there are at least a few aspects of the latter -- a lot of the nature preserves in this country where hunting is allowed probably wouldn't exist. Nobody would have a reason to want to preserve them.
It would certainly be different. The change would be gradual, however, so I suspect that there would be enough time for us to adapt as societies. There's no way that meat would go out of demand overnight, right?
As to your first point, well, refrigeration works well enough for me (and most of the people reading this board). There are also other methods of preservation that don't rely on the cold. Besides... just because someone else can't practically be vegan is no reason for those that can to shun it.
Perhaps I should have said that my statement is the consensus among most of the vegans with which I associate?
I'm willing to keep an open mind about your statement, but it would be nice to have some examples. Specifically it is important to me not to be misinformed, and to not base my decisions on superstition.
just to euthanize them. They've gone to shelters, claiming they wanting to help find homes for animals. The shelters turned over highly adoptable animals, and PETA turned around and killed them. They had no intention of trying to find homes for the animals.
Animal welfare and animal rights are two very different creatures (no pun intended).
Animal rights groups, such as PETA, have the goal of ending all interaction between humans and animals. No eating animals, no service dogs, no police dogs, no zoos, no hunting, no pets, etc.
Animal welfare groups believe in treating animals humanely. Don't abuse or neglect animals, if you're going to kill an animal for food do it as quickly and painless as possible, etc.
Most of PETA's members don't understand what PETA is truly about and don't realize that there's a difference between animal rights and animal welfare.
No plant produces vitamin B12
B-12 is produced by soil bacteria.
It is trivial to get B12 in the U.S., as it is added to cereal, bread, orange juice, fruit soda, faux meats, and other foods; not to mention it's in multivitamins.
Eating meat does not magically give you a "balanced" diet, so vitamins are a good idea regardless.
but humans really do need to eat animals to live well.
No, they really don't.
Perhaps, but it appears that God Himself is a carnivore:
4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of
sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the
fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of
the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his
offering: 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy
countenance fallen? 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be
accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto
thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when
they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother,
and slew him.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext90/kjv10.txt
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Usually a couple times a week, if you don't count the eggs that go into various baked goods. I just realize that our bodies are naturally supposed to partake of meat, pure and simple. To chastise people for not going against their bodies' natural dietary requirements is just wrong. It smacks of the fundamentalist Christian "sex is evil" platform, which combines interestingly with vegetarianism in the case of the inventor of the graham cracker.
Just because you were raised to think it's wrong doesn't mean it is, doesn't mean that you can project that on others who believe differently.
And I do make a mean baingan bharta.
Strikes a chord - really active vegetarians are little different than any other advocacy group which, in the end, get little real interest.
I was never raised on a farm. I grew up in seattle. I've never gone hunting or killed any animal larger then an insect.
But after I got married, we decided to move into the country, and eventually started raising and slaughtering our own animals.
I started with chickens, and moved up to rabbits and goats. Several had names and use to be breeders, but later turned into stew.
It did take some practice to learn to kill a chicken or rabbit with a single stroke, but I didn't let failure hold me back. I learned by talking to other farmers and practicing.
Personally, I think if more people butchered their own meat, there'd be fewer vegetarians. I'm actually more open try trying out new meats after raising my own.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
There's no such thing as painlessly harvesting flesh from an animal. Either they feel it anyway, or they become crippled, or otherwise. Besides, it's damage that needs to heal.
Pick an apple, you don't hurt the tree.
The main quality IMHO about plants is that you can eat them without hurting them.
This bothers me - you can't know what an animal is thinking, so you can't know if their byproducts are freely given or not. There are equal odds that a chicken, if it could make a choice, would choose to lay eggs on a free-range farm over a life on the outside.
It's clear that animals don't like to suffer - they can vocalize and react in ways that make that clear. But beyond that, you're making assumptions.
In general, the byproducts serve another purpose. Cow's milk is produced in order to feed calves. Eggs are a reproductive mechanism. It's still taking something that doesn't belong to you, specifically because you *can't* ask the animal for permission. If a person was mute, they would still own their stuff. This philosophy only works, of course, if you grant animals the right to self-ownership.
I think you forgot one.
Reason 7: Plants are energetically cheaper than meat.
It takes vastly less land, water and energy to sustain a vegetarian population.
That's the only reason that ever made sense to me - not enough to convert me though.
You're right, there is no such thing, but then that's what makes it hypothetical. Perhaps if I changed it to genetic engineering; cows now grow nerveless steaks on their backs, akin to trees fruit. They could be sedated then have the steaks surgically removed.
But you're ignoring the whole vegans-eat-more-than-fruit thing.
As for pain, it's just a more complex form of damage detection, which plants have.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Does this mean that their previous strategy of engaging the public, to wit, throwing permanent red dye at people wearing synthetic furs, isn't doing it for them? I'm shocked.
Earth to PETA: everyone hates you. Even people who are in favor of the ethical treatment of animals think you're wacko. You used to be cool. What happened? You're like the left-wing version of the NRA, once an organization supporting responsible behavior that got taken over by wingnuts to force some agenda down our throats. Go die already.
Peter Singer has a quite convincing argument that a reasonable dividing line for having rights is self-awareness. Thus a fetus, and in fact a freshly-born baby have a lower status on the 'human-animal scale' than a grown-up chimp. There are some reasonably simple tests for self-awareness (the red dot on the forehead test, for example), so this criterium is actually more or less measurable.
If you think morality is somehow an objective thing independent of the individual, where does it reside then? Religious people can fall back on God's will, as they do for so many other 'explanations', but where is an agnostic or atheist supposed to find that 'morality' you speak of as independent of the individual?
...This is why breastmilk is vegan (it is freely given)...
This answers my next question: Do vegans swallow.
You'd find San Fransisco packed with latte-drinking tree-hugging crystal-rubbing raging carnivores.
Yeah, food production sucks. That is why 99% of the population from any industrialized nation opts way the heck out of doing it, and instead leaves the messy, dirty, and depressing labor to machines when it can and poor immigrants when it can't. Then we idolize the good old days when we were all farmers, because 16 hour days most of the year and periodic starvation when the whether turned poor sound so freaking nostalgic.
Incidentally -- growing vegetables kills animals, too. Do you eat vegetable products? Are you familiar with the word "tilling"? Do you understand that the process entails taking an automobile which is larger than a tank, attaching multi-ton blades to it, and then repeatedly jamming these blades into natural animal habitat? Sure, nobody died to make your soy burger... tell it to the fieldmice.
(Organic, low-intensity farming also kills animals. If you have a plant in an environment that is anything other than hermetically sealed it is a race between human and Everything Else to eat the plant -- diseases, parasites, bugs, rodents, larger herbivores, etc. If you want to win the race, you have to kill Everything Else.)
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Let's look at this in regards to one of their lecturers
or this in regards to their ties to the ALF and ELF and comments made by PETA employees.
or watch the Bullshit episode on PETA and then try and rebut all they say in that. (And yes, I know the Bullshit shows are horrendously one sided, and when they come down on the other side of a topic I believe in it shits me to tears... but they make some fine points in this episode)
If all PETA did was raise awareness of animal rights, lobby for their fair treatment etc. then I would support them, but they DO put animals above people in far too many cases, and somehow forget that treating humans worse than they wish animals to be treated sends the wrong message.
The Secret Life Of Plants. Fascinating book. Eye opener for me (former vegan, still admiring vegans and agreeing with morality behind it). Together with animal studies you'd learn the differences between the feelings and perception between plants and animals.
Problem is, it is sometimes damn hard to be vegan. It depends on your resources and location, but it requires a lot of research.
I've found the key to a succesful vegan lifestyle is slowly adapting (by learning and studying), networking, and either live in a vegan or alternative lifestyle community or create your own.
Because I'm not able to do either one (financial trouble) I bought some devices to make my own (raw) food, and source from local health food stores. This way, I support corporations with ethics, enjoy good vegan and raw food, learn and study this lifestyle, while not being too strict for myself and stressing myself because of my morals.
Why I prefer veg(etari)an food? Cause its tasty and feels good to eat, especially with the correct spices! This I found to be an important key. By-products such as whey I eat when included in food, but dairy I hardly eat. For health, it is very difficult, but I found something such as MSG making me hyperactive, and exercises are good for my health (e.g. requires less sleep) no matter what diet I follow.
Hypocrisy is in every set of morals, BTW. Perhaps I've been taught wrong, but I've been taught in Bible, Torah, Quran it says its wrong to kill. Yet people following these religions murder in wars and commit other acts of violence.
May I suggest using a bit more modern translation? No real reason to use old and bad translations except that it sounds a bit ritual :)
This one seems to be a bit better:
New International Reader's Version
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
Reason 7: Meat disgusts you
I wouldn't eat meat just as I wouldn't eat a cockroach or a sewer rat.
Already included as #1.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
If you actually subscribed to this then vegans wouldn't be eating root vegetables, which have no such regeneration for the most part, and other such plants.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
No, it's not. They're entirely different, I'm fine with the killing, I just don't want to have that shit in my body.
You're a pretty ignorant person.
Calm down.
So, any reasons? Cause I really am just defaulting to "eww intestines", here.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
PETA on pets: http://origin.www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp PETA on service dogs: http://blog.helpinganimals.com/2008/01/exploiting_mans_best_friend.php http://blog.helpinganimals.com/2008/02/to_serve_man.php PETA is against crating (crating is actually a helpful traing tool, as well as giving the dog its own private space): http://origin.www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-cratingdogs.asp PETA wants dogs and cats to be fed vegan/vegetarian diets (which is not good for the animals): http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34 PETA tries to make children fear their their parents: http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf In short, they're a bunch of nut-jobs. Doesn't matter if you're democrat or republican, if someone really cares about or is involved with animal welfare, they shun PETA. I know plently of liberals as well as republicans that hate PETA. From pet owners, to shelter workers, to reputable breeders. Seriously, just read through their site, read between the lines, and research their claims. They aren't what they seem to be on the surface.
I must refer back to Genesis in this respect. God gave Adam dominion of all life on the earth to use as he saw fit.
As it stands, this original mandate, before being cast from Eden, allows us to do what we will with these animals. Later, in Leviticus, certain restrictions on diet and deviate sexual practices (bestiality) were later forbidden, but the original mandate was never completely rescinded.
I'm not sure how Genesis and Leviticus are relevant here, but if you want to go that way, the obvious answer to the "God made us rulers over animals, so we can mistreat them as much as we like" is that nowadays we prefer responsible rulers over tyrants and dictators.
I do get the impression that PETA is rather extreme and militant, but them making parody games seems pretty harmless to me.
I feel it is a right for me to eat meat. No one should have the ability to remove that right from me.
I don't want to take away anyone's right to eat meat (I occasionally eat it myself), but have you considered the way that meat is produced? A lot of animals that are bred for meat are treated very badly. Comparisons to torture and nazi concentration camps aren't really all that inappropriate, once you know how the meat industry works.
If you want to go out in the woods and shoot your own dinner, by all means, go ahead. But if you by your meat in the supermarket, please pay attention to whether you're supporting cruelty to animals. There's also free-range meat, for example.
If you want to get biblical about it, keep in mind that in the new testament, all dietary restrictions were revoked, and we're supposed to use our own common sense about it now.
My common sense, for example, tells me not to give money to people who are excessively cruel to animals. Nor do I need meat every day. But every once in a while eating meat that was produced in a responsible manner sounds acceptable and even healthy to me.
It's worse than vegans needing a huge array of vegetables. No plant produces vitamin B12, so vegans have to get it from some really odd sources, such as yeast extracts. It can be done, of course, but humans really do need to eat animals to live well.
As far as I understand, only children and pregnant women really need B12. And while plants don't have vitamin B12, eggs and cheese do, so you can live perfectly well without eating meat.
Then again, a few years ago I (vegetarian who ate lots of cheese and eggs) had a rare case of anemia that seemed to be related to a shortage of B12, so something in my understanding seems to be off.
Personally I'd be a bit creeped out by the overly industrialised gen-tech related meat production. There's no pleasing me, I suppose.
And yes I had heard of that test, but a test only proves what it's testing. As far as other markers of intelligence, chimps seem to encompass more of what makes humans smart (emotions, bargaining language skills, etc).
Besides there is no chimp equivalent of bacon.
..........FULL STOP.
Most people I know agree with some things PETA says (almost everyone agrees you shouldn't beat your dog)
Being against cruelty is an animal welfare topic.
Animals rights takes a lot of the ideas of animal welfare... and then they step over the line and become extremists. "Treat your dog kindly" becomes "pets are slaves, collars are nooses, we must phase out companion animals for their own good".
The most attractive girls I've dated are vegetarian. I really don't care why, or whether it's correlation/causation/random chance. Don't care at all.
Maybe being vegetarian is a way for them to control their weight. Cool. Works for me. I'll buy you all the vegeterian meals you want, take you to hippie restaurants, stock up on Chik nuggets.