Vegetarians

"Mr. Ellin"?
No need to be so formal, some folk still call me Mr K.

My point was more or less what you pointed out. I tried. I'm a practicing Budhhist and eating meat, while not against Budhhism, is certainly something one wants to try and avoid, for all the humanitarian reasons listed previously.
But I couldn't. I adapted.

You're right, others could do the same, but some people won't and some people might and some will.

Such is the nature of life.

 

I do eat meat, though its at a lower level then most people in America and the UK- and I suspect Australia. Now, here's my considered reply.

I do not eat factory farmed meat, but I will and do eat free range. I do not consider it to be unnatural for humans to eat meat nor do I consider it unnatural for animals to die to feed others. Its a full part of the cycle of nature. I also know that if these animals are not consumed, they will no longer exist as a species. We already have enough problems with biodiversity and I do not feel it is right to eliminate species, even ones we have created. Animals that we consume are not natural, they have lost many of the instincts that preserve their wild forbears, thus a cow would be hard pressed to survive without people.

I believe that meat consumption should be lower then current levels and that if it were lower (in part why I eat so little meat) that there would be a natural decline of factory farms and that the drive to produce cheap meat would be lessoned. Thus, it would turn into more of the free range style meat production that I consider to be more humane. Now then, on to slaughtering. Slaughtering an animal is not inherently cruel, though I do agree that it can be cruelly done. If one is responsible, I see no problems.

Just because I eat meat does not make me thoughtless or ignorant of cruelty, it just means I live differently then you. Further, I have found that many (not all by all means) who spend their time huffing and puffing about how bad animals are for the environment do so with little to no consideration to how bad plants and farming in general can be to the environment. I have also seen arguments against leather and wool with little or no consideration to how toxic synthetic fabrics are to make and how much pollution occurs to make them.

So next time you point fingers at the thoughtless meat eaters of the world, take a good look around. You have as little room to judge as you think they do. Just because you are doing something doesn't mean you are ignoring something else that you could be doing- like removing as much non-organic foods as you can or eleminating as many plastics as you can while recycling as much as you are able.

And if I seem judgmental, forgive me. I have seen too many thoughtless vegetarians of late screaming thoughtless and recycled untruths in the attempt to make themselves feel better for their choices. Though, not nessicarily here. That and PETA have been getting on my nerves for a while. So I do not mean to take that out on you guys.

 

Satori:

You say my argument is logically fallacious. I suspect either you didn't understand my argument, or you don't have a firm grasp of logic and its fallacies. I notice you didn't mention which fallacy I had committed. I can tell you which one you've committed. It's a non-sequitur fallacy known as a straw man. You make up a "dummy" of my argument and then attack it, in this case through an attempt at an reductio ad absurdum, a reduction to absurdity, and try to give the impression that you've successfully addressed what I actually said, wherein fact you've done nothing but the logical equivalent of a slide of hand.

You incorrectly interpret my argument as "I can't do everything, therefore I'll do nothing". I can sympathize, because I did purposely make my post subtle and satirical, rather than blunt and to the point. All that aside, my point was to show that vegetarians are not on the other side of some moral fence as they, and you in particular, claim to be. They are on a spectrum of morality, less like the difference between a virgin and a rapist and more like the difference between someone who's had 12 sexual partners and someone who's had 14.

The irony in this is of course that you think I've committed the 'fallacy' of seeing things in black and white, everything or nothing, when in fact I've committed no such fallacy. It is you and all the other self-righteous vegetarians who think that morality is black and white, with vegetarians being good, and meat eaters being bad, or thoughtless, or heartless, or lazy, etc.

The fact is, every single human on the planet sacrifices the life and well being of other people/creatures in order to procure convenience. I gave half a dozen examples in my post of things everyone does (eat veggies, use power, live in society, drive cars, wear clothes, pay taxes) that hurt other creatures and make their lives easier/more enjoyable. Vegetarians have this ridiculous idea that they are somehow morally superior to people who eat meat, because they give up ONE convenience for what they deem a morally sound practice. They can't just keep it a personal choice, it seems you people (almost all of you) have to talk down to people who eat meat, and use FALLACIOUS appeals to emotion to try and make people feel bad about eating meat (you call it making them think, but an appeal to emotion is designed to bypass the reasoning process). You show pictures of tortured or ill-treated animals, you give statistics about disease and death and what not, trying to show the meat eaters the evil they are supporting.

Everyone who does this is a hypocrite. My point isn't "If you can't do everything, do nothing", my point is "If you aren't morally consistent, who are you to talk down to other people?". You may not eat meat, but you surely drive a car. How would you like it if some hippie who walked and rode his bike everywhere showed you a bunch of pictures or roadkill, and gave you statistics on animal fatalities on highways, and all the while talked down to you and "tried to make you think" about what a heartless evil jerk you were for not being just like him. You'd feel exactly the same way I feel about you.

You might as well shoot up heroin and then tell someone on crack that you're better than them cause at least you don't do crack.

You're not better than me, or anyone else, because you don't eat meat. Vegans aren't better than you because they don't eat animal products. People who don't drive cars aren't better than you because they don't hit squirrels. We all weigh our convenience and happiness against what we percieve to be right, and we all choose convenience most of the time. Just because you give up convenience some of the time, for some arbitrary things, doesn't really mean jack to me.

Eat veggies all you want, lay off the preaching and the moral hypocrisy. Just so you know, it's called the fallacy of special pleading

On a side note, I'm so sick of people equating non-organic with environmental destruction. How is it so easily ignored that genetically altered and mass produced foods like grain, corn, and rice, have saved BILLIONS (no exaggeration) of people in third world countries from starvation. Go tell some hungry farmers in Asia that they COULD have all the food their family wanted from genetically engineered and mass produced rice, but that'd hurt the environment so they better starve to death on organically grown foods.

On another side note, I was a vegan for quite a while a couple years back. Thought I was better than everyone, thought I was a moral crusader, a concientous consumer, read and preached the PETA brochures that depicted suffering animals, etcetera etcetera. Had a debate with an intelligent meat-eating philosopher, he pointed out the hypocrisy in my self-percieved moral superiority, and I only stayed a vegan long enough to meet my weight loss goals, sans the preaching. When it comes to logical consistency, it IS black and white - either you're a hypocrite, or you're not. I choose not to form any system of ethics that is internally contradictory.

 

There's plenty to dislike about GM crops that have nothing to do with the fact that it is GM. The plants don't reseed, so rather then the traditional collecting of seeds and planting the next crop, poor farmers have to buy new seed every year. The crops are being grown regardless of the environment in which they are found, so corn (for example) is being grown in Africa where there isn't enough water for it so it is depleting ground water faster then the ground water is being recharged when sorgum (a crop that is native to the area) could have been grown in the existing environment because that was the environment it was developed for. There is plenty that is good about GM- salt tolerance, drought tolerance and other things can be built in, what is bad is the not so advertised business practices that go on with GM crops.

Yes, we have a lot of room in America to talk, all the developed nations can afford to eat organically. So why don't we? Because of factory farming, crops have become monocultures that do not take in local environments, so can do more harm from the increased need to irrigate. The main selective considerations are how fast does it mature and how hardy is it for shipping, not how it tastes or how nutritous it is or even how well it fits in the arid areas that it is being grown in.

Factory farming is ruining small town economies. There are very few local farmers any more. Rural America is dying because no one can compete with factory farming unless they attempt to switch to organic, wich comes with its own risk factors.

So why would someone not support organic farming when they are able? It supports small family farms, helps reduce pollution in the environment, and the fruits and veggies actually have taste since they are allowed to ripen on the vine rather then being picked green and treated with gas to make them appear ripe. And since they are allowed to spend more time on the plant, they actually have more of the nutrients that they are supposed to have rather then the nutrient poor factory farmed versions which are always picked too young.

 

Socrastein: You make many assumptions, grasshopper.

Read the first two pages of this thread, then see if you can really point a finger at me or the other vocal vegetarians. It wasn't until the third page where I finally lost patience and started "Post Yelling" and "Preaching".

People come to a thread titled "Vegetarians", then poke fun or ridicule those of us that choose to eat differently. We gently give some reasons for our practices...and are still made fun of and criticized.

At this point the majority leave, as they understand where this is going...having been forced to deal with people like this for as long as they've chosen an alternative form of consumption.

I'm sorry, but if you shove me, I will shove you back.

Sound fair?

People criticize us, and we're supposed to take it. Heaven forbid we forcefully defend ourselves...since if we do, we've suddenly gone from "Silly Hippies" to "Self-Righteous Preachers".

Don't like having your views challenged? Then don't challenge ours.

Don't like having someone criticize your choices? Then don't criticize ours.

You posted something relatively light hearted and offensive, and I responded fairly gently. The fact that you want to make this personal is laughable.

We aren't arguing about the semantics of logic...hence why I chose not to point out and attack which specific fallacy I felt you were committing, but only that you were adopting a defeatist, unproductive attitude. This isn't a debate where you pick apart my poor typing skills, but where we address the issue that seems to draw unwanted attention from those not involved.

What you seem to be implying with a lot of your posts is that we (and me in particular) are calling every meat-eater an immoral, gluttonous, overweight, and thoughtless moron while we (and me in particular) are standing on a pillar of vegetable righteousnous where we proudly display our shining block of tofu to smite all the evil non-believers in their tracks.

If you go back and read several of the pages, you'll notice my most snarky and aggressive posts are in response to people attacking me, and not me attacking innocent people. The way I see it, someone attacking the way I choose to live is a huge imposition of their beliefs on me...but suddenly I'm the bad guy for stating my beliefs in defense of myself?

Someone says, "Farm animals are meaningless to me. Who gives a flying frick what they feel."

I respond by posting disgusting pictures of farm animals being butchered. Even if you aren't emotionaly affected, then you should logically think, "Yuck! That is nasty! Why would anyone eat that?"

Someone says, "I'm not a little pansy that flinches at dead cows."

So I respond by posting all sorts of famous "little pansies" that DO flinch at dead cows.

Someone tried to disregard and right off any "Moral Reason" by calling our choice a "Religously Moral" one.

So I responded by attempting to explain that compassion for living things was not a religiously exclusive trait.

Someone says, "There is no logical reason to eat vegetarian."

So I list a bunch of health facts researched by Medical Doctors to show that there ARE reasons.


So...whats the problem here?

Are you angry because we're tired of getting picked on?

Does it upset you to have someone dispute a point you're trying to make?

Are we supposed to take a verbal slap in the face with stride since defending ourselves would be "Morally Preaching"?

I'm very impressed that you received good grades in logic. I'm a little disappointed in your lack of patience and understanding.

I do have one serious question for you, though.

You said that you had a discussion with an intelligent meat eater that pointed out your moral hypocrisy.

Is the fact that you were acting like a moral hypocrit the only reason why you gave up vegetarian eating?

Did he mention any health benefits that showed his method of consumption was more beneficial to you than what you were choosing to do?

I'm curious, because the way I see it, you could have stayed vegan but simply "laid off the moral preaching". That could have been your well-learned lesson from that experience.

What else was said that made you want to not only drop the attitude, but the eating habit as well?

 

Things have become way too heavy.

I think we need some kittens.

 

He's just...so...cute...

 

I <3 Socrastein

 

Hitler Was A Vegetarian
by Joel Mabus

Oh, your soybean burgers just don't hit the spot tonight;
And, darlin', somehow those tofu tacos just don't seem quite right.
And I'm thinking, as you dish me up your special seaweed stew
Darlin', Hitler was a vegetarian too. (It's true !)

Hitler was a vegetarian, don't you know?
He also was an anti-smoker, militantly so.
Forgive me if I slip downtown for a plate of barbeque,
But darlin', Hitler was a vegetarian too.

Remember when you told me we were what we ate?
Well, I've thought about that, darlin',and I'd rather be an animal
than slowly vegetate.
So next time you skin potatoes and you gouge their little eyes,
Remember this before you start to sermonize:

Hitler was a vegetarian, don't you know?
He also was an anti-smoker, militantly so.
Forgive me if I slip downtown for a coney dog or two,
But darlin', Hitler was a vegetarian too.
My darlin', Hitler was a vegetarian too.

 

No he wasn't that's a big fat lie meat eaters tell regularlyand even if he was so bloody what? Stalin ate meat, so did Gengis Khan does that make every meat eater a mass murderering dictator?
http://www.ivu.org/history/europe20a/hitler.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2096259/
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html


By the way because of Godwin's Law you have just lost the argument under the rules of the Internet. Loser.
http://www.all-creatures.org/mfz/myths-hitler-rk.html

 

I have no problem with vegetarians





...they taste great.

 

It was a joke young lady.

male veg = wimp

 

I did a difficult thing today.

I actually went back and read some of my previous posts.

It reminded me of a conversation my fiance and I had when she finally convinced me to give up meat products.

I remember specifically saying, "Alright, fine. You're right. This is the way we should eat. HOWEVER...I will NOT become one of those leaflet passing, holier than thou vegetarians that get in everyone's face and tell them how to live."

I don't do that in real life...yet several of my posts are doing just that on the internet.

Therefore, I've become a big fat hypocrit.

The above actually made me roll my eyes at myself.

That is never a good thing.

My original intent was to flood all silly criticisms with evidence to support my chosen lifestyle. I figured that I might help out a few people that were looking for validation in starting a new eating habit.

What I forgot is that the number of vegetarians on this board number on one hand...maybe one mutant hand if I'm missing some.

This means that I'm essentially arguing against the vast majority of this population, and puts me dangerously close to a "Contrarian Troll"...sort of like the Born Again Christian that goes to a Muslim website to convert everyone.

It's in bad taste and definately isn't my style.

As such, I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this thread before I offend anyone else and/or continue to make an **** out of myself. The last thing I want to do is turn people off of vegetarianism for sounding like a PETA Puppet.

 

So was the Godwins law line, hugs

 

Who says the well-being of people who work on small farms is more important than the well-being of people who work on large factory farms? Think of how many other people benefit from people being able to buy cheaper food from large factory farms. If I can go stock up on fruits and veggies and grains and save $50 because I bought cheaper product from a large factory farm, that's $50 I can spend on shoes at the local Payless, helping that business out, or $50 I can spend on other foods from other companies, of course helping them out. That saved money doesn't vanish into space, it's put somewhere else, helping out other companies, whereas if for some reason I had to buy expensive food from small family farmers, they get all my money and nobody else does because food was too expensive for me. For low-income families especially, saving money is the biggest factor when it comes to shopping for essentials like food.

Further, I really don't care if the factory farms pollute more. I've yet to see conclusive scientific evidence that greenhouse emissions and pollution in general are really destroying the earth as the hysteria would have one believe. We've no solid reasons to believe global warming is anything other than a natural climate shift that the earth undergoes every few thousand years due to natural factors.

Regarding taste, I actually think most, not all, organic fruit sucks. It's small and never very plump. Apples are the worst. I'll take a modified, super big, super plump and juicy apple over a dinky, natural, the little apple that could.

I don't care when you did it, and how patient you were for how long. You and others got preachy, and so I stepped in, and my posts are thus perfectly relevent. I don't care if other people made fun of you, or criticized you, and hurt your feelings, and made you upset and lash out. All I'm concerned with is the apparent contradictions in your ethics, and the hypocrisy of preaching the moral superiority of vegeteraniasm, admonishing those who choose the convience of meat over the rights of animals, even though you and everyone else choose the convience of cars, and clothing, and power, and society, and countless other things, at the expense of animals.

I love having my views challenged. It's a personal hobby of mine. Don't like having contradictions pointed out in your posts? Don't post hypocritical arguments

Another personal hobby of mine actually, however that's irrelevent since I never once criticized your choice to be a vegetarian. I've merely criticized your poor arguments and self-contradicting ethics. I trust you can see the difference. I never made this personal by the way. Perhaps there's such a thing as reading too much between the lines.

I've never taken a logic class either. I do have some idea of common courteousy in a discussion however. It seems to me a matter of respect that if you accuse me of something, you can back it up. Otherwise you're just throwing out empty attacks, and that's not much good for anything really. If you say I'm being fallacious, you better tell me how. Would you not be slightly perturbed if I had simply said "Satori you're contradicting yourself" and when you asked where and how you had done so I said "Blah blah blah, Satori's in a logic class"? You're bordering on personal attacks with your little quips, I'd try to keep this objective if you can.

I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not this is poor sarcasm or simply another straw man attack. I'll restate my position once again just for clarity's sake.

Vegetarians have no right to state or even imply that they are in any way morally superior to someone who eats meat, because to do so they must invoke the principle "It is wrong to support the harming of animals for the sake of convenience", and in doing so they have contradicted themselves, for surely every vegetarian supports the harming of animals for the sake of their own convenience and well-being. I gave multiple examples of such.

I never said you were a bad guy for stating your beliefs, and again I don't care if you were defending yourself with your remarks. I'm not offended when people attack my beliefs. Once again, I never have taken any formal courses in logic. You seem to be projecting every time you belittle my adherence to objectivity and reason, as though it threatens you or something. Do you have a problem with me trying to conduct a rational debate? Would you rather I simply insulted you? Or made irrelevent arguments? Or made straw man attacks on what you are not saying? Or made subtle personal remarks toward you?

Again, the relevent issue at hand is that in admonishing people for eating meat out of convenience, you are contradicting yourself. My argument is that simple. Let me lay out a game plan for you so you don't go off on anymore irrelevent tangents.

If you disagree with me, you can do one of 2 things:

1. Explain to me how I am mistaken regarding the underlying principle of all "eating meat is bad" arguments. In other words, deny that you think vegetarianism is morally sound because it is unethical to place one's own happiness/convienence/taste preferences over the suffering and well being of an animal.

2. Accept that your arguments are built on the afforementioned principle, and then explain to me how you don't actually contradict it by driving a car, or living in a house, or using wood products, or using electricity, or wearing clothes, or eating vegetables, etc. In other words, tell me why you think you are any different than someone who eats meat when it comes to picking and choosing how important your happiness and convenience is compared to the well-being of animals.

As for your personal question, I was only a vegan for 2 reasons:

1. I thought that eating anything that directly or indirectly harmed an animal was morally wrong, and that I would be a better person to abstain from all animal products.

2. I wanted to lose about 40 lbs or so, and thought at the time that not eating animal products would be the best way to do so.

When my arguments were torn apart and I was shown to be a hypocrite, and later when I reached my ideal weight, I no longer had any reason whatsoever to stop eating meat, and so I've eaten it ever since.

 

I <3 you too Adam. You and that big, beautiful, nutrition and exercise information filled brain of yours.

 

Yes, Socrastein, its a value statement.

Based upon small town and rural economies, I have come to the conclusion that small family farms are more valuable then large factory farms. I support that conclusion with my money. You don't like that fact, deal with it. I prefer money to stay within communities as much as possible, I shop at local shops as much as possible. When I move to a large town, the economics and the dynamics change.

You don't like organic don't eat it. I don't recall anyone actually stating that you have to eat it.

I won't say much about the pollution, though why you felt the need to bring green house effect in I don't know. You're statements just don't seem based upon little scientific study. Thanks- I'll stick with the science.

 

Go get a full tissue massage Wry, relax a little bit. Can I not disagree with your points without you taking offense? If you want to address my arguments and their flaws, sweet. Please do so. If you want to get testy... well, that's not so sweet. Please don't.