Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
As the Reason Foundation admits, using the Masai people as an example is extreme. So is the example of eating Stone Soup. What is the evidence for millions of people starving if they didn't eat meat? Prior to the 20th Century, most people all over the world ate meat very infrequently and were much healthier than modern meat eaters. They didn't suffer from heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, etc. Millions of vegetarians world-wide are living long, healthy, disease-free lives.
- Santa Cruz Mom
July 13, 2008 5:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
1) While there are a group of diseases on the rise in the industrialized world, it is inaccurate to describe 19th century people as healthier.
2) Our ancestors did suffer from all of the listed diseases - there is a difference in rates of disease.
3) 100s of Millions of meat eaters are living long, healthy, disease-free lives.
4) There is a huge difference between eating meat infrequently (but as often as possible) and the position advocated by PETA.
- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 2:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In this thematic, to bring up an exampla such as you did with the Masai, is just wrong!
The question wether people should eat meat or not - especially when it is discussed on the internet - doesn't categorically include such societies as the massai.
Most people who are against eating meat, have a problem with the industrilisation of meat.
i wouldn't have a problem with you going in the woods with a knife and hunt yourself a deer, but, the grotesque is, that children for example don't even recognize that they eat "these cute little veal".
Get It?
- Yelneerg July 28, 2008 5:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
What is the huge sacrifice in NOT eating animals? To say that poor people should eat meat because their lives are bleak and there fore we all should eat animals as well is one of the most silly arguments I've ever heard/read before on this issue.
- Phat P August 6, 2008 12:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Unfortunately, this comment mentions that a remote culture, which has relied through the centuries for survival on cattle blood and milk, must somehow be indicative of what we should do in Western Society. We have abundance and they can't be choosing what they are going to eat. Poor people can have a much better diet if it was based on wholesome plant foods, instead of meat. If meat is culturally a symbol of prosperity, that because of the herding culture we live in (see Will Tuttle's World Peace Diet). It also has a "macho" aura to it, but should we base our actions on that, too? Conclusion: meat is bad for health, bad for the environment, and bad for the animals. Period.
- mgalli August 7, 2008 4:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"It’s easy for those of us lucky enough to live in rich Western countries blessed with fertile soil and temperate climates to insist on a plant-based diet. But for millions of people worldwide, a non-meat diet is a starvation diet. "
Reason has this backwards. Only wealthy countries and people are capable of having diets based primarily on meat and poor countries typically have diets based primarily on plants. Meat is far less efficient to produce than vegetables (it takes roughly 10 pounds of vegetables to produce one pound of beef) and studies have shown that meat based diets lead to chronic diseases that plant based diets avoid.
Meat costs far more resources to produce than vegetables and is unnecessary for a healthy diet. If we want to feed poor people then a diet built around vegetables, not meat, is the solution.
- reckoner August 14, 2008 2:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"It’s easy for those of us lucky enough to live in rich Western countries blessed with fertile soil and temperate climates to insist on a plant-based diet."
You're right. It's incredibly easy to be a vegetarian or vegan in places like the US.
- ElaineVigneault September 7, 2008 9:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The Reason Foundation said, "It’s easy for those of us lucky enough to live in rich Western countries blessed with fertile soil and temperate climates to insist on a plant-based diet. But for millions of people worldwide, a non-meat diet is a starvation diet."
This isn't an accurate statement. For millions of people worldwide, a non-meat diet is not a starvation diet. The Masai people of East Africa have become increasingly dependent on food produced in other areas such as maize meal, rice, potatoes, and cabbage. Furthermore, the Masai who live near crop farmers cultivate produce as their main source of sustenance. If the Masai people were to continue eating a diet that consisted only of animal-products they would probably perish.
The Reason Foundation said, "Even for the poor in America, meat is a powerful totem of wealth and good living. People on a limited food budget will trade a smaller number of total calories in exchange for a morsel of meat once they get above starvation levels."
I don't see the relevance of this sociological fact.
The Reason Foundation said, "To be an absolutist against meat eating is fairly uncomplicated for relatively wealthy Americans who make up, say PETA’s membership. But it asks a huge sacrifice of millions, perhaps billions, of people whose lives are already harder, bleaker, and (too often) shorter than our own."
I'd like to dismiss this whole "argument" as a specious piece of rhetoric (which it is), but I think your final conclusion is wrong.
Given that some of the Masai people have moved toward produce cultivation rather than animal husbandry, this undercuts your claim that it is asking a "huge sacrifice" for them. The only "huge sacrifice" that ought to be inferred from this article is that the existence of the Masai people would be harder and bleaker if they did not begin to cultivate produce.
- Tadius September 9, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Arguing that vegetarianisms is a privilege of the wealthy, and that if people stop eating meat, the nebulous poor people of the world will be materially damaged is simply counter factual.
It is an unarguable economic reality that beef and chicken farming increases the price of grain. If we reduced or stopped the farming of beef and chicken then more land would dedicated to producing grain to feed people, instead of grain to feed animals. If this were the case, world grain prices would fall, and the poor and hungry would have more food and more money.
So, whatever else vegetarianisms does or does not do, it does not hurt poor people.
Please do not take the name "reason" in the name of your organization and then go off and say things which are demonstrably false.
Now, I'm going to make myself a ham sandwich.
- Matthew Ackerman September 19, 2008 12:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I just had to add a comment on the supposition that livestock eats food that could be put to better use being fed to humans.
Wrong.
First of all, livestock consume plants that we humans don't/can't eat: hay, straw, alfalfa, rye grass, etc. Though in some cases they are fed humans products, it's not enough to feed the world.
Also, food grown for human consumption needs to be grown on certain types of soil, which may not be readily available. The most suitable land has a temperate climate, rich humus, sufficient rainfall, is close to water, and has an abundance of natural "pest" control (ie: lady bugs, spiders, etc). Unfortunately, this land is usually occupied by plants and animals , so in order to make it profitable for human crops, the native species have to be evicted. Then, the earth has to be cleared, an infrastructure built, and finally crops will be planted and processed.
However, this poses a certain problem: huge ecosystem damage and animal mortality. Food chains are destroyed, and the environment is irreversibly compromised. Vegans say we can use the existing land originally used for livestock: but that is incorrect.
Livestock land does not = crop land. In most cases, it is very unsuitable. The soil is often hardened, churned up, filled with waste from the animals, and completely depleted of the natural, healthy microorganisms that usually reside in soil and make it productive for crops. It would take much time (and money ) to re-cultivate the land for crop production. No corporation would be willing to do this; instead they will clear more and more already fertile land, keeping the land originally used for livestock barren and untouched.
If the world went vegan, the supply plants will either remain constant, meaning the poor won't reap the benefits, or more land will be cleared, which harms our environment more and more.
- scarlet1979 May 31, 2009 3:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
How much cattle kill Masais and how much is killed by the rich countries? Let's compare pollution and breeding-related problems between rich countries and Masai. Actually there's no comparison. Not so many decades ago in most towns and villages people gathered to kill a few pigs or cows or lambs and they used to get the most of them. Think about all different types of meat that a pork gives: tripe, ham, chops, face, muzzle, ears, feet, sirloin, ribs... And people didn't eat meat everyday, rather they learned how to preserve it so that it lasted for a whole year.
Now think about the meat industry in the United States, people eat meat everyday without any consideration, just because they can afford it. Meanwhile , rivers, aquifers, the air is being polluted, forests destroyed to grow food for animals , ... Is this the same situation as with Masai? Please, look for a better comparison because this one does not add up.
- joancarles
May 31, 2009 4:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Animals can feel. Getting closer to the process would give you a better understanding of that. Would you be able to kill and eat a chicken you raised from a chick? Would you be able to eat and kill your dog or cat?
- Santa Cruz Mom July 13, 2008 5:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
There were quite a few holocaust survivors who later compared the death camps in Germany to modern slaughterhouses. Many of them also became vegetarians after their experiences. The well known author Isaac Bashevas Singer once wrote "To animals, all men are like Nazis". I think the comparison here speaks for itself and is an ugly truth meat eaters will not want to admit.
- Phat P August 6, 2008 1:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
This addition to the conversation seems to be a dispute with PETA's holocaust metaphor (without a rational justification for labeling this comparison "absurd" of course) wrapped up in a question of means: "People aren't going to go vegetarian all at once, so try another method." Okay. Those who believe that forcing an animal to suffer unnecessarily should take your suggestion and perhaps adapt our methods accordingly. But, what is your point as it relates to "Should we eat meat"? You still haven't presented a rational justification for doing so.
I might ask further, if you existed in a society where women were denigrated to the status of property, would you argue to those who seek to abolish this practice, "Listen, not everyone is going to allow women full rights anytime soon; therefore, let's try to make some women "happy property" for now. You're wasting your time otherwise."?
- Alex M August 9, 2008 3:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I'm guessing reason has never been to a industrial "free-range farm". The chickens are anything but happy.
"Rosie the organic chicken's life is little different from that of a conventional chicken. The organic chicken house held 20,000 birds. They get a few more square inches of living space and they get to live a few days longer. Though under the circumstances it's not clear that a longer life is necessarily a boon. Running along side was a grassy yard maybe 15 feet wide, not nearly big enough to accommodate all twenty thousand birds. The federal rules say an organic chicken should merely have "access to the outdoors". I waited by the chicken door to see if any of the birds would exercise that option and stroll down the little ramp to their grassy yard. Seldom if ever stepped upon, the chicken-house lawn is scrupulously maintained to honor an ideal nobody wants to admit has by now become something of a joke." paraphrasing michael pollan from an omnivore's dilemma.
- reckoner August 13, 2008 9:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I agree with the author, going cage-free or free range is better than eating just any kind of meat. The organic industry needs to be a little more regulated for it to become a perfect world, but changing people's eating habits is more than half the battle.
And yes, I have raised chickens from chicks and I loved them as pets. When it came time to kill them, it was sad, but I can always rest easy knowing they lived long and happy lives.
I was brought up to respect all life, but to also understand we are all are part of the food chain, and we have every right to eat them.
- TwentySomethingAndSmiling August 19, 2008 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Show me proof as to how cage-free or free range is better. Find evidence and not rhetoric, please, because I cannot. All of my research seems to suggest the opposite. Then let's consider the fact that you are not the only one who, without looking into it, has stated that it's "better". This is dangerous, because if we're convinced that it's "a good start" without seeking the truth, then we're just succumbing to more blind ignorance. People will feel as though the movement is out of their hands and someone else is making good progress for them so long as they keep buying meat, dairy, and eggs and simply decide to pay more for food labeled with euphemisms that absolve their guilt.
Also, can you please find me a scientific journal where the food chain is used as a justification for using animals to our own ends? I've never seen the "food chain" used by respected sources in this way. It's usually just a way to categorize species.
- mike August 19, 2008 10:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Where do you get this "right"? Argue your point without these undefended assumptions.
If it’s unnecessary to force an animal to suffer, which it is in the case of consuming their body parts as even conservative dieticians argue, to what "right" can you appeal to justify continuing to do so. “Might makes right” perhaps? This principle has been shown to be morally bankrupt as it leads to unacceptable conclusions such as the Holocaust, for example. So again, what “right”?
- Alex M August 21, 2008 2:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The Holocaust occurred, and was stopped, because our reality is one in which "might makes right". Whether it is "morally bankrupt" according to your values is irrelevant as such disagreement does nothing to disprove its existence. It is quite easy to apply ethics when the general populace of our world agrees since in those cases the "unethical" persons are quickly put down by the superior might commanded by the righteous. It may really appear that there is some absolute ethical code that exists; especially considering the role and characteristics of religion throughout human history - I believe there does not. This (religion) too, however, is a natural consequence of "might makes right" since a religious group is, abstractly, a social group whose members have pooled their might in order to try and make reality match their idea of right. Likewise, those same members have a tendency to maximize their own utility and will do within the bounds of the societies to which they belong. It is within these two realities that members of a society believe they have a "right" to their actions.
- polobo August 31, 2008 10:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"cage-free" and "free-range" and "cruelty-free" and "certified humane" barely mean anything for animal welfare. Read more here:
http://www.humanemyth.org /
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 10:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"cage-free" and "free-range" and "cruelty-free" and "certified humane" barely mean anything for animal welfare. Read more here:
http://www.humanemyth.org /
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 10:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you want to vote with your dollars consider:
- a vote for meat is a vote against the environment
- a vote for meat is a vote against human health
- a vote for meat is a vote against worker safety
- a vote for meat is a vote against animals
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 10:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
How does the genocide of one species differentiate to that of another? Yes, animals may be different compared to human beings but does that justify our reasons for their murder? Human beings can drive cars, they have opposable thumbs and they can talk, but animals can fly without machinery, can run 15 miles per hour and can communicate with one another in a way we can't even begin to understand. So how does the difference between the two mean that animals are below us?
Just because free range farming is "better" then factory farming, does not mean it is okay to kill animals who have absolutely no say in the matter. It's like saying it is okay to kill a Jewish man and mess with fate as long as he's happy.
- Masqueraderuse November 5, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I eat meat because it's my life and my body - and what I put in it is none of your business.
Murder occurs between humans- its one human taking the life of another without consent. Humans killing animals is called hunting, or feeding the world...unless of course that animal is not your property and you kill it without the consent of the owner - which in that case is destruction of property. But if I buy and raise a chicken, i can kill it, and eat its tasty flesh. Same with a cute little cow, i can kill it and make me some tasty steaks. Its my property, its my body, and I have the liberty to do what makes me happy - and that's eating meat when I want to eat meat. If i define my happiness this way, based on my values - there is no argument that PETA or any other anti-human organization can come up with that could make me happier.
And all your illogical ideas on elevating non-human species at or above the level of humans? wow....
If what you say is true - I welcome the day that cows and sheep try to outsmart us humans, maybe someday our sheep and cattle brother and sisters can vote and we'll have bi-species marriage...oh how wonderful!! we'll all eat some type of organic protein material that is not animal based (don't wanna hurt those vegans' feelings!) - in the meantime I'll be happy with exploiting them - enslaving them and cutting off their hair for my garments - stealing their milk for my tasty ice cream, and shooting them in the back of the head so they die a painless death and then cuttin' up the carcass to feed my hungry tummy. - I think I'll go get me some chicken nuggets and a hamburger..... thanks for showing me how silly animal-rights people are!
- selfish November 17, 2008 6:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree that you are selfish since you seem to be saying that your only consideration in regards to eating meat is whether you want to. If you wanted to eat Downs' syndrome infants or an aged person with severe dementia, it would wrong by society's ethical standards. What you desire isn't the only consideration if you want to live in society. I think we need to reconsider our ethical standards in regards to non-human animals. We re-considered sexism and racism, perhaps we're ready as a society to reconsider speciesism. I believe non-human animals deserve similar moral consideration to that enjoyed by humans. All of us mammals (humans included) and birds (and probably reptiles...) have a subjective experience and desires and the drive to continue living. I'm describing the characteristic of sentience. Sentience is really the only characteristic relevant to whether we're justified in breeding, confining and killing other species. Can you think of another?
The only defense you offer for eating meat, besides that you are selfish, is that cows and sheep aren't as smart as humans. Many individuals aren't as smart as many non-human animals (e.g. the humans referred to above), but that doesn't give us a right to eat them. If you think we are ethically justified in eating other mammal and bird species because of their level of intelligence, then, logically, you should find it justifiable to eat humans whose intelligence is at a similar level. Is that true? Society finds this repugnant.
A common justification for exploiting animals is that humans as a species are 'superior.' But that's not different from saying something like "I'm white and therefore superior. I can exploit blacks if I want." If you think it's okay to be racist, we have nothing to talk about. Speciesism is akin to bigotry.
I understand wanting to eat something you're accustomed to and defending that pleasure, even if there's no good justification for it. But meat only tastes good because of conditioning. Just consider what people eat in other cultures and you'll realize there's no innate DELICIOUSNESS to animal foods. I used to love the taste of meat. After learning more about animal ag, though, I committed to giving it up. After a couple of years being vegan I find animal flesh and secretions disgusting while plant foods are sublimely delicious.
I like that you say "shooting them in the back of the head so they die a painless death." That makes me think you do recognize that non-human animals have feelings and that you have some compassion for them. It's that compassion that eventually led me to change and I just wish I'd been more open to it years ago.
Sammy
- Sammy December 30, 2008 9:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Agreed that those who believe 'meat is murder' and that any murder is too much murder will in no way be appeased with this argument. But there were a number of other arguments presented by PETA including the ones about the environment, world hunger and others that would also be resolved by a reduction (not cessation) of meat eating. Meat eating has been part of human cultures for thousands of years, but the industrialization of the process (killing) has turned it into something so brutal that few of its consumers would be able to stomach watching it let a lone participating. Boycotting or (more likely to have an effect) legislation requiring certain minimal standards (after all we do have cruelty to animal laws) would likely improve conditions and increase price decreasing consumption. Asking people to stop entirely to some people cancels traditions, alienates friends and family, forces people to change their identities. Transitioning from a society where meat is consumed 3 meals a day to once per week would accomplish most goals and focusing on improving standards might be an inroad to that process.
- GreenLove September 3, 2008 1:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
Sure, a reduction of meat eating would achieve a good deal for the environment, global human hunger, and human health and welfare. But you said some interesting things about what's wrong with asking people to give up animal products entirely that I'd like to address. You mention tradition. Is tradition ever a justification for an otherwise unethical practice? Think of slavery or sexism, for instance.
I think I only alienate friends and family who have unacknowledged conflicting feelings about eating animal products. The people who are confident they're doing the right thing have no problem with me. Occasionally someone will be 'put off' by the inconvenience my presence brings to an occasion. Often, though, I can mitigate or remove the inconvenience and turn it into a positive experience for everyone. I am very grateful for the people who were unafraid to live their values and thereby introduce me to new and welcome ideas. Living my values brings me more intimacy than alienation.
If someone's identity is wrapped up in their beef burrito, then I think they have a serious problem.
- Sammy December 30, 2008 10:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A reduction in consumption would be a full fix to the environmental problem and the world hunger problem. It would only partially appease those who consider meat to be murder. A tradition of slavery and a traditional turkey on Thanksgiving are really two very different things in my opinion. Those arguing for the environment and world hunger should be arguing for more efficient and sustainable land-use policies (which would result in less meat) not a ban on meat. Those bringing up the poor treatment of animals before they are slaughtered should be advocating improved standards for the treatment of those animals. Those who believe ethically that meat is murder should be advocating that no one eat meat. Lumping all these issues related to meat together prevents any action on any of them until there is a lot of support for a strict vegetarianism . Considering where we are and where we have been that support may never come.
- GreenLove December 31, 2008 6:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Ants. They do just as people do and herd aphids and other smaller insects. It's a fact that while they protect them from others just as a farmer protects his sheep or cattle from wolves and coyotes , they also use them the same way dairy cows are used for milk. Chimps have learned how to fasion spears to hunt other smaller primates. Food for thought and I was not supprised no-one mentioned this since while most AR activist are schooled in various subjects, I have not seen this one or other eco system facts stated. Or that all domestic animals are part of our society , not really any ecosystem outside of man. That topped by the fact that all plant life eating animals in this group would be competing for our own crops putting them in with coyotes,rats, mice, and all other creatures that eat our crops or herds. Their future still wouldn't be all sunshine.
- Mcdowelli76 May 31, 2009 6:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Ants do not have a developed nervous system. Neither do aphids. These creatures do not suffer when they are farmed.
Cows feel pain, anxiety, and fear. So do chickens, pigs, and other vertebrae. Especially in cramped and miserable conditions seemingly prevalent in mass produced meat factories and farms.
Farming is natural, yes. There is no doubt that it has emerged in other species. But if we are able to minimize the suffering of our animals , why wouldn't we do that?
- advance June 12, 2009 4:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The paper "food miles undermined" declares itself at the beginning - it was written to try to convince environmentally consicous consumers in the EU to buy New Zealand meat and produce. There is no supporting evidence given for the findings. Who commissioned the report? What are the credentials of the people who wrote the report? The argument that a dozen hothouse apples might produce more carbon emissions than a slice of bacon is based on a paper without any credentials and the faulty assumption that a person who refrains from eating meat for environmental reasons would then turn around and eat produce grown in a hot house half way around the world.
- Santa Cruz Mom July 13, 2008 6:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I think your whole argument is summed up in your dozen apples vs a slice of bacon comparison. It is dishonest and laughable. You can't grow just one slice of bacon and the amount of resources it takes to raise a pig, slaughter it and transport him or her to a market or restaurant is much more damaging to the environment than even 100 apples. The only thing more damaging is this argument you've laid out about eating meat here.
- Phat P August 6, 2008 1:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
"Be specific about your concerns and eat accordingly, rather than imposing a blanket ban."
I agree that this is a logical way to approach the issue.
For anyone whose concerns include...
1. animal welfare,
2. human health and wellness,
3. workers rights and safety,
4. crime and violence,
5. small farmers and the economy, or
6. the environment
...should reduce their meat consumption. Go vegetarian or vegan part-time.
For anyone whose concerns include...
1. the above, and/or,
2. animal rights
...should go vegan.
Remember, it's not an either/or decision.
You can go vegan AND eat organic, local, sustainable.
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 8:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
If raising animals for food is so harmful, hunting for meat is obviously the answer. A pound of beef may require 2500 gallons of water, and wheat may require only 25, but wild venison does not need to be provided water. If anything, shooting the deer ends the menace of some creature eating our food, drinking our water, and farting greenhouse gasses. Obviously, I am being a smart ass. Your argument is not against meat, it is against agriculture in general. Since global warming doesn't exist and agriculture is required for sustained human population, human specialization, and civilization in general, I would say that it is worth the cost.
- richardsonkr January 24, 2009 11:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm only allowed 1000 characters, and your quote by John Stuart Mill will save me lots of space. I suggest others read that quote and decide for themselves whether or not we are truly doing this for other sentient inhabitants of our planet. If animals have the right not to be imprissoned, tortured, and then brutally slaughtered, then this argument flies out the window. If you truly believe that animals do not have these most basic rights, then you need to truly think about why this is. Because they don't communicate like we do? Because they look different? Perhaps because they don't have the same type of intelligence we do? What right do we have (according to Mill) to acquire gains at the expense of millions upon millions of animals desiring and struggling to be free of the oppressive, torturous, murderous hand of mankind? Resolve that conflict, and the point posed by this expert becomes meaningless.
- mike August 16, 2008 8:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
When a behavior is damaging to another, it is not a matter of choice. If I follow what the CCF tells me, it is my right to beat children, since no one should tell me how to live my life. It's pretty much an "overlords of the Universe" argument, in which mankind has the self-given right to do pretty much as he pleases. Coming from the CCF, which is a front for the people who produce meat, dairy, eggs, and a bunch of animal-based products and junk food that they want you to keep on buying, we shouldn't give these guys the time of day. They are not "independent thinkers" as they want you to believe, but a think-tank front for the very industry that exploits animals. They don't want a change in the status quo, so they throw the "freedom card" at us. The head of CCF is a know Washington lobbyist for the food industry. I suggest readers pick up a copy of Michele Simon's "Appetite for Profit" and see who these guys really are.
- mgalli August 17, 2008 1:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
Nobody should have to... if you had a heart, you would work it out for yourself. On the same basis, absolutist human liberalism, you could argue that nobody should allowed to tell you whether or not to conduct dog fights or conduct other acts of animal cruelty. Law's are made (should be made, anyway) ultimately to protect those who can suffer from the harm in the hands of the heartless.
"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." ~Thomas A. Edison
As is so often the way, we were so quick to use the technological fruits of Edison's intelligence, but remain so selfishly unwilling to accept his even more valuable compassion and wisdom.
- sean joshua
August 20, 2008 12:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
All the other arguments against legislated vegetarianism seem minimal in comparison to this one.
It seems likely that the only way to achieve a vegetarian society would be through the use of coercion and violence. Since I support human rights (such as the right to put whatever into, on, or through one's own body), I could never condone such totalitarian laws, and think they ought be repugnant to anyone who has an interest in living free. In my estimation, anyone who would support laws telling me what I can eat, smoke, drink, or otherwise put into my body...seems like a person against the very idea of liberty and freedom.
While legislating diet may sound appealing to some, it would be the type of social policy worthy of Stalin or Mao.
- ebsarver August 21, 2008 4:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Can you eat, drink, or smoke other people? No. It's illegal. Is that repugnant? What you'll arrive at is something to the effect of "I can eat whatever I want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to do so." That's a more ethical and logical conclusion.
No one is saying that government should make laws until the people are ready to have them enforced. So first, it's important for people to understand why they should be enforced. Suggesting that the idea is to have the government step in and force you to do something you clearly don't understand is merely a scare tactic from people resistant to considering that they may be in the wrong. Pointing and calling people totalitarian is a weak defense indeed.
The only direction you can go from here is to try and argue why animals shouldn't have rights. I'd be happy to help you through that one.
- mike August 21, 2008 7:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
First of all, this is not a "legislating diet" issue, but a moral issue regarding human relationship with other animals. The dietary aspect of it, it's, although very important, just one among others.
I am a Vegan, and I don't support coercion or violence. I strongly believe in education, critical thinking, debating, and helping people see things from another perspective in a non-violent way.
But this doesn't meant that "everything goes". I believe that exploiting other animals is immoral, therefore I work everyday to accomplish a state of affairs (i.e. a majority of the population going Vegan) that will mean their emancipation. I hope to be a part of a movement that will accomplish this without the need of a "violent revolution" or an "imposition" of any kind.
To your argument.
This is NOT a matter of "personal choice" or "liberty". A person who likes to rape women DOES NOT have a right to rape them. He has NOT the right to do whatever he wants to.
Is this a totalitarian law? A violation of liberties?
In my view, it isn't, simply because the rapist's actions are in conflict with the liberties and interests of someone else. That's where liberties have a limit.
You don't seem to recognize other animals as "someone", although everything points into that direction. They are sentient beings, with wants, preferences, likes and dislikes, interests, just as human animals.
They have all that's needed to take them in consideration when we talk about morals.
Violating their interests because you like the taste of their flesh or bodily secretions is NOT a morally relevant justification, because if pleasure is, in fact, enough reason to justify some action, then rape wouldn't be considered immoral at all.
In this light, the argument that "Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'" doesn't represent a meaningful argument in favor of enslaving, exploiting and killing other animals.
Regards.
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 5:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Are lions wrong to kill the antelope? Are chimpanzees violating the "rights" of termites? Are bears violating the rights of humans when they maul them?
If your answer (the only logical one) is "no," then it begs the question, "why is it only wrong when humans do it."
If your response to that amounts to "because we know better," then I would really have to question your view of life. Some things eat energy. Other things eat other things. We are one of those things that eats other things. Period. Setting ourselves apart is the height of hubris.
Attempting to force everyone on the planet to go along with one's own set of values...whether those values are Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or whatever religious/social culture you want to pick...seems like a good way of creating a totalitarian society
It amounts to "my culture is better than yours, and I know better, so I'm going to force my culture down your throat."
We already have WAY TOO MUCH of that kind of activity happening. They already legislate which drugs are legal and which are not. Taking the next step to tell us which foods are legal and which are not...scares the heck out of me. What would be next? Telling me WHEN I can eat and WHEN I cannot? Telling me I have to drink the flouridated water, and banning any system of filtering it out of my water?
If you support banning meat eating at the government level, you support totalitarianism, simple and plain. You support "my culture is better than yours." You support "my belief system is superior or more accurate than yours." You support, "I know best and have the right to tell you how to live."
Comparing to murder is a very clever red herring, but does not measure up...it's just a red herring...and I'm not biting.
My argument is not in favor of anything. It is specifically AGAINST telling people how to live their own lives, and specifically AGAINST legislating morality.
- ebsarver September 2, 2008 12:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Ebsarver:
Hubris is slaughtering 12 billion animals annually in the US and 53 billion worldwide. Hubris is thinking that “we’re smarter than others so we can torture and kill them.”
The issue in this debate is whether we are morally justified in torturing and killing animals for food. The issue is NOT about “legislating” anything. We are not morally justified in torturing and killing animals for food, but we cannot legislate anything regarding this problem until more people are educated on the issue.
Finally, nobody is “imposing” anything here. We are merely challenging the cultural dogma that blindly accepts violence IMPOSED on the innocent for trivial human pleasures. For more on “imposing beliefs”, check out the following essay:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-imposing-beliefs-on-others.html
- dan September 2, 2008 8:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We already discussed this in this very debate, so I'll copy/paste something I wrote already.
I think that getting our morals from the behavior of others, especially when they are from other species, it's simply absurd. Human morality comes from critical thinking, not from other animals' behavior.
I don't know whether other animals have morals. I certainly know I do.
I don't know whether other animals (especially carnivores) can survive without killing or otherwise exploiting other animals. I certainly know I can.
This is enough to make our own decisions, and form our ethics, regardless of the actions of other animals. That's why we can say that rape and murder is immoral, even when other animals actually rape and murder other animals.
Yes, other animals kill other animals to eat. Yes, other animals rape females. Yes, other animals kill female's offspring in order to reproduce with them. Yes, other animals fight and even kill each other for territory or to get the females.
Why is it only wrong when humans do it? "Why can't we rape women? Lions do it! Why can't we!!??"
Because taking your morality from the behavior of other animals it's just NOT REASONABLE.
Yes, we must kill to survive. But I bet that humans are not in that equation for you. I bet that you don't think that cannibalism it's ok because, "hey, we have to eat something!"
And I'm pretty sure that your argument "AGAINST telling people how to live their own lives" doesn't include human murderers or rapists. I don't believe you think "we can't tell rapists how to live their lives". Why? As explained in my former response, it is because our liberties have a limit. And that limit is someone else's liberty.
You've already said that you are in favor of "human rights". This is why I find rather odd your statement that you're "specifically AGAINST legislating morality", since human rights are just that. Morality being legislated. Humans have rights that protect them from other humans violating their interests; in other words, we tell people how to live their own lives, indeed, in order to protect HUMAN RIGHTS.
So the question seems obvious, again and again. Since other sentient animals share the same basic interests, why do we only protect humans?
You already wrote that "Setting ourselves apart is the height of hubris."
So, why?
Apart from that... do you think it is ok to impose unnecessary pain, suffering and death on other animals? To do so just because we want to or derive pleasure of it? Do you think that a human torturing a dog because he likes to do it, isn't doing anything reprehensible?
And please, don't keep bringing the "imposition" issue. We're grown up humans, in a DEBATE website, sharing and debating our views and arguments. Nobody's trying to "force [one's] culture down your throat".
That seems to be just a lack of argument.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 2, 2008 11:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I have read the counter-arguments, and will simply never believe them, because the "no" side of this argument seems founded almost completely upon moral absolutism. I believe moral absolutism in itself unfounded, and therefore I reject any argument based upon it.
Let's say meat eating got banned. What kind of results could we expect? It seems easy to project them, based on what we see with other forms of prohibition. It seems likely that people would NOT stop eating meat, and that it would be necessary to hire more police to stop the meat eating. A new federal agency, let's call it the Animal Rights Enforcement Agency (AREA), would likely be formed to deal with the massive problem of rounding up millions of lawbreakers. The prisons would fill to the brims, just as they have with marijuana users, or as they did with alcohol users.
The conditions under which black market meat products get created would not be up to par. A ton of people who refused to kowtow to the government would end up poisoned. The animals who used to be raised under regulated conditions are probably now being raised in horrible ones, or at least unregulated ones.
Predictable results of prohibition: massive crime waves, creation of a police state, decimation of human rights on a grand scale, no true lessening of the "undesireable" behavior.
If Animal Rights folks want to wage their little war against eating animals or using animals, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the notion of LEGISLATING the issue. If it were ever made law, I would predict a huge cataclysm for democracy. Those who support THAT...will never have my support.
It seems so simple and plain. On one side of the argument is "hey, let's create more prohibition." On the other side of the argument is "hey, let's not." If we examine the results of prohibition, we can see clearly what they are. So...the "No Side" of this argument amounts to an argument in favor of: big government, massive black markets, arresting and jailing our own citizens en masse, removal of constitutional protections in order to hunt down the new "criminal" class, increasing dangers of the black market, poorer animal control and regulation, etc....
This is what you're REALLY voting for on this one, animal rights activists. Is that REALLY what you want? If it is, power to you...go for it...I don't think you'll get many supporters.
Who knows, though. Human history is rife with people who will sacrifice liberty and sanity for ideals. We've already had alcohol prohibition, and they got millions of people to come out in support of that.
All I can say is, the USA is totalitarian enough with the Dept of Homeland Security and the DEA running around out there...the last thing we need is a new federal agency locking up our own citizens for this kind of "crime."
- ebsarver September 2, 2008 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
With all due respect ebsarver, you haven't really read any "counter-argument" because you haven't raised ANY argument, whatsoever.
And, you haven't counter-argumented any of the arguments raised by the "NO" side either. Just a single "I don't believe them". That is not an argument, it's an opinion.
You are just saying, over and over again, that you're against "imposition". But we've said, over and over again, that we don't want to impose anything, let alone the impossibility of doing so at this time in history.
If we are ever going to change the status of other animals as human commoditties, it will have to come from a paradigm shift in our thinking, in people's minds FIRST. Then can come a regulation or legislation of society as a whole.
Human slavery wasn't abolished when everyone thought human slavery was OK. No. It was abolished after a good amount of people realized the immorality of it.
Sadly, there was a violent revolution to get that abolition.
But, please be honest and answer me this... Do you think that the abolishment of human slavery was wrong? That it was an imposition of someone's beliefs? Poor slave owners?
Same with prohibitions against rape. Are you against them? Poor rapists can't exercise their personal choices?
Your moral relativism really doesn't hold any water.
I'm not a moral absolutist. I think that under certain circumstances, killing other animals (humans or not) can be justified (as in a kill-or-die situation). But, the fact that some action can be justified under a very specific situation, doesn't mean that doing the same action every day, just because you want to, it's justifiable.
There's a clear difference between smoking marijuana/drinking alcohol and eating meat. Basically, the former ARE personal choices, since, under normal circumstances, the only one involved is the consumer (not talking about drunk people driving cars, hitting their couples, or whatever). Eating meat is NOT a personal choice, because it REQUIRES the violation of the interests of someone else (unless you only eat your own flesh, roadkill, or animals that died in the wild from natural causes).
That's why, in my view, labeling marijuana or alcohol consumption as immoral in itself it's nonsense. Enslaving, exploiting and/or killing other animals, in the other hand, is immoral when there is no true necessity involved -- and that is the case for 99.9999% of our uses of other animals.
How do you justify this, then?
An argument would be greatly appreciated.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 2, 2008 1:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I would justify it thusly:
In all of nature, omnivorous beings exist. Homo sapiens sapiens falls into this categorization. That means that homo sapiens sapiens eats other animals.
If I accept that other animals eating other animals is correct and part of the natural order, then humans would be included in this. If I deny it, I must deny the whole of nature, and view nature itself as "morally wrong."
I would justify it as a natural part of the order of life. I would justify it as "this is where we fit in the ecosystem." I would justify it as "if humans did not exist, the same behaviors would continue, but the ecosystem would not be "wrong"." To me, that's all the evidence I need.
I have no problem with animal rights folks trying to win hearts and minds. I have a problem with them legislating their values upon everyone.
If we're going down the "all life is sacred and has rights" path...a seemingly clearly spiritual/religious belief pattern, and not one verifiable by science...then where do we draw the line? Is it okay to eat an egg, but not a chicken? Is it okay to kill a rat? What about a worm? What about a centipede? A dust mite? An aomeba? A bacterium? A virus? A tree? The grass? Is a nervous system required for it to be wrong to eat a thing? If so, how much of a nervous system? Is a small bundle of nerves enough, or does it require an actual medulla be present? Where is the line exactly? Which living beings have a right to life, and which do not? Why? To really take the "living beings have rights" conversation to its logical conclusion is to decide to stop eating.
Some reading for arguments against animal rights:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2921/LRE080.html
http://doingethics.com/Blog/2008/08/arguments-against-animal-rights.html
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/aniright.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4376.html
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9202/articles/derr.html
http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/Animal.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/machan6.html
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--926-The_Problem_Animal_Rights.aspx
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/machan/machan43.html
http://www.ucalgary.ca /~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/cohen.txt
- ebsarver September 2, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
ebsarver:
First, I should remind you that you are probably a moral absolutist. Most people are moral absolutists. When someone tries to defend rape or child exploitation as a morally permissible practice, most people believe that rape or child exploitation is always wrong, absolutely, and without exception – they are “absolutists” about it. Vegans carry that same moral conviction to the exploitation and killing of animals. We think that violence against the sentient and innocent is wrong, absolutely, and without exception. We are consistent in our beliefs. We don’t make arbitrary and elitist distinctions like the human-nonhuman distinction.
Second, I should remind you that this is NOT about legislating anything. It is not about politics (notice: it is in the “society” section, not the “politics” section). I agree with you that we cannot and should not try to legislate veganism at this time in history. It would be absurd to try. The argument being made is that we are not morally justified in exploiting and killing innocent animals for food (or for any other reason), and it is an argument that you seem desperate to avoid addressing by repeatedly bring up the “legislation” issue that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t blame you for your evasiveness, because there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals.
- dan September 2, 2008 3:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Visit the links I posted.
Contrary to your assertion that, "there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals," the links I posted already make arguments to this effect, and additionally completely debunk the arguments of animal rights activists very effectively.
- ebsarver September 2, 2008 3:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"I believe moral absolutism in itself unfounded, and therefore I reject any argument based upon it."
Wow, that's not at all circular or absolutist or anything, is it?
Your argument is essentially, since not everyone can or should be vegetarian, no one should. That sounds pretty absolutist to me.
The question is "Should we eat meat?" It is not, "Should meat be banned?"
- ElaineVigneault September 7, 2008 10:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
What is it with you veggies, that you keep attributing things to me that I never said?
"Your argument is essentially, since not everyone can or should be vegetarian, no one should."
No. I never said anywhere that nobody should be vegetarian. I could care less if you want to be one. Anyone who WANTS to be one should be one. Go for it.
- ebsarver September 9, 2008 3:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/stupid-things-omnivores-say-they-would-eat-us /
Even if animals don’t use or understand ethics that doesn’t absolve humans from ethical obligations. Our ethical obligations arise from our capacity to reason and to behave ethically, not from another’s lack of capacity. Our responsibility to do the right thing comes from our ability to do the right thing (and our capacity to do the wrong thing), not from someone else’s abilities. For example, adults have a responsibility to refrain from harming children because adults have that ability, not because children have the same abilities.
The more power you have, the more responsibility you have to behave ethically.
- ElaineVigneault September 2, 2008 11:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This is not about prohibiting people from doing something, or banning "meat eating". This is about protecting someone's interests and rights, in this case, other animals.
Rape analogy it's not a red herring. Saying that rape is immoral it's not about prohibiting people doing something, but protecting people from the harm that others may cause them by raping them.
It really is that simple.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 2, 2008 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
ebsarver:
First, I remind you that you are probably a moral absolutist. Most people are moral absolutists. When someone tries to defend rape or child exploitation as a morally permissible practice, most people believe that rape or child exploitation is always wrong, absolutely, and without exception – they are “absolutists” about it. Vegans carry that same moral conviction to the exploitation and killing of animals. We think that violence against the sentient and innocent is wrong, absolutely, and without exception. We are consistent in our beliefs. We don’t make arbitrary and elitist distinctions like the human-nonhuman distinction.
Second, I remind you that this is NOT about legislating anything. It is not about politics (notice: it is in the “society” section, not the “politics” section). I agree with you that we cannot and should not try to legislate veganism at this time in history. It would be absurd to try. The argument being made is that we are not morally justified in exploiting and killing innocent animals for food (or for any other reason), and it is an argument that you seem desperate to avoid addressing by repeatedly bring up the “legislation” issue that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t blame you for your evasiveness, because there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals.
- dan September 2, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You wrote: "It seems likely that the only way to achieve a vegetarian society would be through the use of coercion and violence."
a) That's not the issue. The question isn't "How best to create a vegan society?" nor is the question "Should meat be banned?" The question is "Should we eat meat?"
For animals, for our health, for the environment, for other humans the answer is clear: NO, we should not eat meat.
b) You're just plain wrong that coercion and violence are the only ways to make a vegan society. There are many routes to the same goal. You've identified one route and focus on it as though it's the only route. You ignore the range of other possibilities, such as vegan education.
- ElaineVigneault September 7, 2008 10:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
They have the most at stake.
Furtherjmore, the real question is not "Who can tell me what to eat?" The question is "Is it right to kill for pleasure, or out of habit?" The answer is no.
- garyl September 1, 2008 10:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The CF claim that “Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'” is more a statement against free speech than an argument against vegetarianism.
Taken literally, the statement means I shouldn't have the right to voice my opinion on this website.
Make no doubt about it, the Center for Consumer Freedom does not advocate actual freedom. Rather, they seek to silence any and all criticism of the businesses they represent: the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries.
- ElaineVigneault September 7, 2008 10:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
No one should have control over what you eat and don't eat. if I wanted to eat a ball of wax, I would not expect anyone to contradict me. Quite frankly, I don't care either way if it's healthy or not. Alot of things without meat aren't either. It's my right to decide what gets put into my stomach! I have been a fan of the Center for Consumer Freedom for a long time, and was excited to see that they had a profile on here. It's good that someone out there is watching out for the consumer, the little guy, who just wants the right to have his cake and eat it too (literally) whithout any radical organization, or movement within the left-wing bowels of the government trying to stop you.
- Brady November 10, 2008 11:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It's not "free choice" until vegan options are readily available EVERYWHERE. Until someone can choose veganism as easily as they can "choose" meat, "choosing" meat isn't a truly free choice.
If the Center for Consumer Freedom truly represented the consumer, they'd make sure we all had a truly free choice. They'd promote vegan options at all restaurants so that everyone could make a truly free choice and CHOOSE VEGAN if they wanted.
But that's not what the CCF is about. They don't want everyone to have a free choice to choose to eat animals or to choose to go vegan. They only want people to make one choice: the one that lines their pockets, the "choice" to eat meat.
Very few people who eat meat have made a choice to eat meat. Most have never not eaten meat. Most have never had a wide range of vegan options at restaurants or grocery stores. Most have never been truly exposed to the vegan lifestyle.
Eating meat isn't a free choice when...
...it's the only option available in most restaurants, schools, hospitals, etc.
...it's the status-quo
...people don't have full knowledge about all their choices
When vegan food is as readily available as nonvegan food THEN it will be a free choice. Until then, meat-eaters are merely "sheeple" just doing what they're told, doing what's expected. They haven't made a free choice at all.
If you are a meat-eater and want to say you've made a free choice to eat animals, go vegan for at least 30 days. TRULY explore your other options to make sure you're really making a free choice.
- ElaineVigneault December 3, 2008 1:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You don’t support your own argument. From your comments, I gather you suggest that there is something wrong with animal rights, but then you fail to explain why. All you say is that most people don't see things this way. Really? You're going to base an ethical argument on peer pressure? Your only other argument is that a veal cow doesn't know it's being bestowed rights. First, you need to back up and see that a right is simply the protection of an interest. Are you saying that an animal has no interests? Second, I suggest you learn about moral agents/patients. Many believe that children cannot reason such abstract concepts as rights until around age 12. Perhaps a young child would be delicious in some infant gravy, but we moral agents bestow upon them the right not to be harmed by others, and we uphold those rights whether or not the children recognize it.
The use of sarcasm and bandwagoning is a embarrassing in an adult debate.
- mike August 16, 2008 8:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Should We Eat Meat?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Peta's arguments are well thought out and informative
There are many reasons not to eat meat, even if they don't all resonate with you, one of them might. The argument that could give you the most immediate and recognizable benefits is that abstaining from eating meat will make you healthier. This is an easy debate to resolve by just trying it out for yourself. See how you feel after 20 days of not eating meat.
- Santa Cruz Mom
July 13, 2008 6:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Think Twice
PETA wants you to believe this garbage. It's just good buisness. Meat is the only true way to get some protien in your body and buil muscle. Sure, animals have some rights, but groups like PETA need to unscrew their heads and put them back on right. Meat has been important to this country's economy and history for centuries. If you take away America's meat, I'll burn all of your salad just to get back at you. MAN UP!!!
- HUNTER
March 3, 2009 5:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no
Then how come me (a vegetarian ) and my friend (a carnivore ) could face off in a sit-up contest, and I would win?
- weeboman
March 29, 2009 11:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree with disagreeing
Exactly, it IS good business. It's ALL about money , not anyone's health .
Protein can easily be found in nuts, legumes, peanut butter, broccoli, and spinach. In fact, spinach and broccoli have a higher percentage of protein that any animal protein.
Also, I'd like to pitch that it's a fact that there are other cultures in which the citizens eat half the protein that the standard American does, but their lives have more health AND longevity. Most Americans eat too much protein.
- thefant
April 19, 2009 9:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
oh the ignorance of omnivores.....
Do you seriously think " meat is the only true way to get some protein in your body and build muscle"?!?!? Wow. Please read a book....better still, go tell that to mixed martial arts champion, and vegan, Mac Danzig.
- progressisdead
May 12, 2009 8:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not sustainable
Eating meat is not sustainable. Until we are able to actually do something about overpopulation (ever hear a US politician mention this concept?!) we need to do everything we can to slow global warming. Meat eaters= gross polluters.
I'd like to see a world where those who have a small carbon footprint are rewarded.
In the end we will all be rewarded -if- we are able to come to terms with the reality that there are far too many of us, and we are killing ourselves (and many other species) by overpopulating, over-polluting and over-consuming.
- HoleiRollei July 24, 2008 9:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sustainable? Really?
Well, let's just think about this one for a moment. Where do most people get their veggies? Well, most people buy them. Either in the grocery store or at a farmer's market. How did those veggies get there?
Okay, but they probably didn't travel that far, right? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends on where you bought them. Store bought means they could come from as far away as South America. Bananas certainly don't come from Ohio. Local buying is better, but that's still a carbon footprint. Several of my friends and I "go in" on a cow and a pig. We know where it's raised, we know who raised it, and guess what? It traveled just as far to reach us as the veggies some people I know (who don't grow their own) buy. As an added bonus, it raises money for rural kids to go to college. Do veggies do that?
Considering that over-population is a result of poverty, you would think that anytime you raise a person up to a level where they are self-sustaining, it's better for the earth. Now if only we could do this in places where poverty is the biggest issue facing the region.
So, even in-season, veggies have a carbon footprint. A huge one when they're shipped from other countries.
Now, what's a vegetarian to do when he lives in Vermont and it's January? How is he to get the nutrition he needs to survive? Where is his small carbon footprint? It has morphed into a huge carbon footprint. That's where it went.
You're also not considering the human impact. I don't know about you, but I DO have a huge problem with the treatment of fruit and veggie pickers as being second-class citizens. Or more likely, they're treated as second-class because they are not citizens. Whilst most are documented workers - as in, they're here specifically for the purpose of picking those veggies you so love to tout as being better than meat - the fact remains that they are looked down upon in our great society, and are paid minimal wages for work that you wouldn't be able to take for so little pay. Or do I have this wrong and you're okay with spending 10 hours in a field, bent over, picking cucumbers in 92 degree (F) heat for little more than minimum wage? I wouldn't do it.
In an ideal world, people would grow their own vegetables and eat what is locally available to them. THAT is what is sustainable.
- SocialistBetty
December 25, 2008 9:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree on what is sustainable
It's not just the population but where you live. Since the world has constantly changing seasons we have a warm one when veggies and fruit can be grown and a cold one when they can't. A lot of places in the world don't have conditions to grow their own. With the population of the world their is not enough room to grow enough to provide for all the worlds people without more deforestation in a effort to do so. This would indanger more species of wildlife than are already in trouble. Even animals like the New Calidonian Giant Gecko eat fruit in the season it is plentiful while eating rodents and such when it is not around.
While it has been proven most pigs can become wild and take on the look and traits of true wild ones they would be competing for our crops with us. Man would be killing them one way or another. Other animals that we have basically created would ruin our ecosystems should they be set free never to be eatin' only later to wipe out entire wild species that never had to contend with them before. To fight for the dignified treatment of animals is truely noble. To outlaw their consumption would either ultimately mean their genocide or the natural world as we know it.
While I eat very little meat myself it leaves me with one question. Do animal rights activists grasp the logic of conservation?
- Mcdowelli76
May 29, 2009 11:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegetarianism and IQ
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently launched "IQ Test the Nation," and the breakdown of results was interesting. There was a statistically significant difference between the average IQ of meat eaters and vegetarians of more than 1 IQ point, with meat eaters scoring higher. Even more interesting is that the subset of Vegetarians who are also Vegans scored 6 points lower on average than meat eaters. So the difference between all meat eaters and all non-meat eaters was about 1.75 IQ points. http://www.cbc.ca/testthenation/episodes/iq/results/groups.html
People who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't. So vegetarians can be healthier, but I would argue brain performance is an indicator of health, and this study suggests that meateaters are healthier. Besides, most people would be much healthier if they focused on removing starches from their diets rather than meat.
- LiberalMulroney
July 24, 2008 9:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what was the margin of error?
what was the margin of error in the study? I'm guess it is greater than 1.75 points which would make the result meaningless.
- reckoner
August 15, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nice try
If you want to argue that this study is meaningless, then you'll have to do better than "I guess [the margin of error] is greater than 1.75 points." No information was listed about what the margin of error is. But with 10,000 vegetarians and 90,000 meat eaters participating, that's a pretty significant sample size. Certainly the Vegan, even though only 1,600 people responded, is well withing the margin of error.
Please read my comment again. When you choose to exclude things from your diet, you may not be getting all of the nutrients that your body requires to function at 100%. That isn't n argument; it's common sense. This study is obviously a pop culture study, but that doesn't make it meaningless.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 9:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the burden of proof is on you
the burden of proof is on you to show that this study is meaningful. If you don't know the margin of error then you can't honestly make the claim you are making.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fair enough, I'll repeat what I wrote below.
With over 100,000 respondents to the survey, and over 10,000 vegetarians, this is a statistically significant number. Don't forget that in IQ, one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. Consider that the average IQ was perhaps too high on this test, reset the average to 100, and this jumps to 4% of the population.
With 1,674 respondents for vegans, over, the differences are statistically significant. Consider that in IQ, the mean is 100 and one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 103.69 and 109.85 is 14.7% of the population. That's huge. With a survey size of 1,600 people, the margin of error is less than 3%. Between mere vegetarians and meat-eaters, the gap is much smaller, which makes sense, since vegans are more likely to be nutritionally deficient because they are excluding more foods from their diet. The difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. But the margin of error is also much greater, since the sample size is 6.6 times larger for vegetarians and vegans.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 10:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
smoke and mirrors
You still haven't given the margin of error for the results. I'll assume that means you don't know it.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Margin of error
No one seems to know much statistics here. The confidence MUST be set in advance, and determines the margin of error. To speak of one without the other is meaningless. That is, if you wish to discriminate among populations (vegans and meat lovers) with 90% confidence level, you might have a margin of error of 1, or 2, or 1.75 points. However, you can't go back to say a 1.75% gives a 90% confidence level - that's intellectually dishonest and statistically bankrupt.
As Disraeli said, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
- AlibiFarmer
September 5, 2008 12:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
EQ measures overall health while IQ does not
A persons EQ is a much better predictor of health, an individual can have a high IQ and a high level of apathy at the same time. Concerning IQ I feel you ought to know: 1.75 is a very trivial number and in this case quite meaningless. If you know about statistics- like taking upper division college courses on the subject and passing with good scores, then you would know these scores mean nothing in this context.
FOOD
Total Respondents Lowest IQ Highest IQ Average IQ Estimated IQ (Avg.)
Meat eater 98876 29.0 156.0 109.85492 109.18708
Vegeterian 11048 29.0 156.0 108.73959 107.68057
Vegan 1674 29.0 153.0 103.69176 103.9092
Look at the number of total respondents. This study doesn't say much of anything.
- M3house
August 15, 2008 12:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Congratulations
Congratulations on your academic success in upper division college courses! I completed a Bachelor of Commerce at University and got A's in all of my statistics courses. YAY for me too!
This is the second person to cite statistical significance to discredit this survey, and yet nobody has actually applied statistical theory to prove your point. If you want to discredit the argument, then apply the statistics that you aptly studied in upper division college and prove it, rather than just stating your credentials and dismissing it without proof.
With over 100,000 respondents to the survey, and over 10,000 vegetarians, this is a statistically significant number. Don't forget that in IQ, one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. Consider that the average IQ was perhaps too high on this test, reset the average to 100, and this jumps to 4% of the population.
Your point about EQ vs IQ is pointless. So what if one is a better indicator? IQ information while not necessarily preferable, is valid nonetheless. And if the lower IQ scores are simply due to apathy, then isn't that just another argument in favor of meat-eating?
Again, I am not saying that vegetarians are dumber people. Read my post again.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Looks like you deserved the A's
Well said Mulroney, well said.
- MrZ750 September 2, 2008 6:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the burden of proof is on you
again, you are the one making the assertion so the burden of proof is on you. Can you please show me which peer reviewed journal this "study" was published in.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Glad you got your A
My profs would have failed you. Without knowing the confidence level designated at the start of the study, you can't know if the results are statistically significant. And the credibility of a 65% confidence level is far different from a 99% level.
I could easily make the case that vegetarians come from a different social strata - one that measures as more intelligent. A cliche in statistics - correlation is not causation. Good studies control for such things - bad ones just throw out numbers.
I have no dog in this fight. I just think if the difference is that small, you are better off using other arguments. If you look closely enough, you can always find statistical differences in any population.
- AlibiFarmer
September 5, 2008 2:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
is mulroney an aries or libra?
you're absolutely right, and to make it more meaningless, this wasn't any type of serious study. It was looking at astrological signs! Apparently Libras are the smartest and Aries are the dumbest, oh and black haired people are the dumbest ;)
- reckoner
September 6, 2008 10:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unfounded.
Your statement is a carbon copy of the urban myth of vegetarianism. Everything you said is simply wrong. You use one...one study without mentioning the methods to confirm a point that has been disproven over and over again. How many people were in this study anyway? What other tests did they do, just that one?
- ajkochanowicz August 25, 2008 3:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Even less-founded
I use one... one study, but you use none, and you clearly didn't even look at my study. There were over 100,000 people in the study; if you actually visited the site you'd see that. My statement isn't a carbon copy of an urban myth. I have never heard the myth before, and my evidence would suggest that perhaps it is not a myth. Perhaps you are the one who is mistaken. If you want to lambaste my argument, you should more than casually skim through it.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Source?
Does this information -- "People who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't" -- also come from this study? What is "often" to you?
Though I have no "written" documentation, I can say that both my family doctor and my nutritionist have stated several times that, in general, non-vegetarians get TOO MUCH protein and not enough of the vitamins available from plant-based sources. I agree that cutting out an excess of meals with starches can have positive side effects, but I think it also risks sending the wrong message that an Atkin's-type diet is good for your health. Whether you are vegan or a carnivore, I think we should all be smart enough to know that zero carbs and excessive meat is bad for the body.
- MelissaRae August 25, 2008 10:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apply common sense
I am neither a doctor nor a nutritionist. The fact that "people who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't" is common knowledge and common sense. And you're right that most people in North America probably get too much protein. It's not just about protein though, it's also about iron. And vegetarians, particularly vegans, don't get enough protein or iron in their diets.
You are totally misrepresenting my argument. I am not advocating Atkins diet. I am not arguing that people should eat fewer fruits and vegetables and more meat, but I am arguing that we should eat at all.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So what?
Even if it is true (which I don't accept your appeal to "common sense" here) that vegans don't get "enough iron", the answer is to educate vegans on increasing their vegan iron intake, not to eat meat to get iron (or protein).
OTOH, arguing from a health standpoint that people should eliminate or drastically reduce their animal fat intake (a HUGE cause of early death in the US) does imply eliminating meat, dairy and eggs.
As a vegan, I eat healthier than 99.9999% of Americans and get plenty of protein and iron (and B12 and everything else). The answer is education, not eating the flesh and bodily fluids of nonhuman beings who have just as much right to their lives as you do.
- dan August 31, 2008 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Congrats on being 1 in a million!
I am very happy for you that you eat healthier (or at least think you do) than 99.9999% of Americans; that makes you one in a million, Dan. I wouldn't expect someone who would make such an outrageous claim to accept an appeal to common sense. I'm not trying to convert you. I am just defending what I, most humans, and many animals do which YOU think is unethical.
I agree that the average American probably does consume too much animal fat. But the debate is whether or not we should eat meat? I would agree that we should not eat as much as we do, perhaps. But I don't believe in cutting it out entirely. Because apparently most vegans aren't getting the nutrients that they need, even if you do. Also, did it occur to you that some diets might be better for different lifestyles, body types, and even blood types?
I agree that people should have more education about nutrition, but I don't like the idea of self-righteous vegans with ulterior motives indoctrinating people to eat like they do. Killing animals for food is natural. Humans do it, as do countless other animals. Suggesting that humans shouldn't eat other animals is as ridiculous as suggesting that Bears, sharks, and spiders shouldn't either. Maybe we should enforce vegetarian policies on other creatures as well. Maybe we could feed spiders and bears your vitamin supplements and lots of veggies!
All I said in my initial argument is that the IQ survey suggested (within the margin of error) is that vegans showed lower IQ's. It could be that many of these vegans' bodies and brains aren't functioning at 100% because they aren't getting the nutrients they need. Or it could be that less-intelligent people are more inclined to adopt vegan diets. Take your pick, unless you have an alternative explanation for the difference. (Other than denial)
- LiberalMulroney
August 31, 2008 4:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exhausting
1)Non-human animals do it, so shouldn't we? No. I bet the reason is posted here. Search. 2) Lots of humans do it, shouldn't I? No. Again, read this forum before diving into an argument. 3) Most vegans aren't getting the nutrients they need? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this scientific journal you refer to as "Common Knowledge". Perhaps you can verify this source for me? I'm unfamiliar with the study.
As for your CBC study, no respected statistician would ever take two sample sets of such disparagingly different sizes and draw comparative conclusions from them. It's not simply a statistical margin of error involved here. There are many other variables that, until revealed or explained, render that report ineffective in the way you hope to use it. I would be very surprised to see the authors of that report draw the conclusion you're making from it.
You're flailing with your statements. Find me a report that says that certain blood-types must consume meat. Find me data. Show me proof. That business is not about being self-richeous. I would argue that someone that would support torture and murder so as to have an increased intelligence quotient is FAR more self-richeous. That's the stuff of super villains.
- mike
September 1, 2008 1:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh Dear
1) and 2) You "bet" the answer is posted here or it is? Apparently you haven't read this forum either, so you're a hypocrite. 3) Your sarcasm is much appreciated. I never said that most vegans aren't getting the nutrients they need. You should try reading my posts more carefully, then you might actually know how to spell self-righteous. It's common knowledge where I live in Victoria, BC; one of the most left-leaning cities in the entire country, and I have discussed this with many vegans and vegetarians. Frankly, I don't care what you eat. Just don't criticize me for eating meat.
The reason that the sample sets were different between vegans and non-vegans is because of the proportion of the total population. The statement that no respected statistician would ever take two sample sets of such different sizes is untrue; you just made it up. And that wasn't the purpose of the IQ test either.
http://www.dadamo.com / But for the record, you haven't cited a single study, and you demand that I provide them. I argue that killing animals is natural, and you deride me for not seeking out the other side of the argument myself which you suspect may be on the page, but you're not sure, and you don't feel like giving it to me. Lastly, you scorn me for my support of torture and murder, which is an absolutely fanatical accusation. If you find disputing my arguments and sources without backing up any of your own "exhausting," then perhaps you aren't getting the nutrients that you need.
- LiberalMulroney
September 1, 2008 3:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ulterior motives who?
You love to use accusatory words that actually argue nothing: "I don't LIKE the idea of SELF-RIGHTEOUS VEGANS with ULTERIOR MOTIVES INDOCTRINATING." Wow. Well, I don't like the idea of meat-eaters forcing their status quo upon me by arguing that I am wrong because I'm in the minority. Anyway, as I already showed in another post, you DO have ulterior motives. You are trying to argue in favor of meat-eating purely on the basis of a health study, when in actuality you have plenty of motives that are forcing you to go beyond the health study. You don't say it directly because you probably don't even realize it - and I don't entirely blame you because PETA was asking for it. But your motive is to maintain the status quo. Your motive is that you don't want to change. And feeling pressured to change is what you call "indoctrination." I'm sorry, buddy, but I have been indoctrinated for my entire life until this year to think that not only was meat ethical, not only that I *should* eat it, but that I *needed* to eat it. And now PETA is trying to tell you the same thing: that you *need* to avoid it for your health.
This is why I dislike PETA. They are maintaining the status quo by recycling mindless arguments, by trying to indoctrinate people to do the right thing in the same exact way that we have been indoctrinated to do the wrong thing. What we need is to be liberated from these dishonest arguments, just as the animals need to be liberated from exploitation. However, don't get me or anyone else confused with indoctrination just because you chose to engage in an argument with your own ulterior motives.
- Ciuma
November 30, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Calm down
I'm not trying to force you to eat meat. You can do whatever you like. What makes me angry is when people argue that eating animals is unethical because they are suggesting that I am unethical. You obviously haven't read the entire thread because you are just repeating points that have already been made and addressed.
- LiberalMulroney
December 1, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Dan
Animals may have the right to life, but the rule of nature is survival of the fittest. There was once a time when we were hunted, but because of our brains, not physique, we came out on top. We can now make up for our physical shortcomings. I love animals, but I eat them(certain ones). Now we are on top of the food chain, too bad for them. They weren't sitting around a table holding a council wondering if they should or shouldn't kill humans. The main reason meat is causing early death is because of improper cooking, growth, and what the government does or doesn't do to the meat.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More prejudice
Nature and other species are amoral. One cannot justify any moral claim by an appeal to nature or power, or by appeal to what another species would do for survival. To base one’s ‘morality’ on nature or other species’ survival needs is to deny morality altogether.
Another way of thinking about it is that if I base my moral claims on nature, power, or other species’ need to survive, then I ought to intentionally kill humans also, whenever it is convenient for me to do so.
- dan January 28, 2009 10:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vegetarians easily get sufficient protein
this is a myth you are trying to pass of as common sense (i.e. meaning you have no basis for the opinion). Please read the book called The China Study. It is written by a researcher with decades of experience researching this subject and publishing it in peer reviewed scientific journals.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
I don't know or care about what any vegans eat, as I'm a lover of meat. But meat is not the only way to get protein. Many non-animal products have protein like beans and peanuts. However, meat is the most effective way of getting protein. Besides, I like the way meat tastes better than peanuts or beans or whatever vegans eat.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Biology
I'm no biology major but from what I've learned in science class, I would conclude we need meat. I mean, we have canine teeth and meat is the best way to get protein. We should eat produce too. End of story.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegan here. My IQ is well above average.
That same "statistically significant difference" of 1 IQ point is also found between:
a) people in their 20s and people in their 30s
b) people with black hair and people with blond hair
c) lefties and right-handed people
All of which suggests reckoner's point that 1 or 2 IQ points on this survey is within the margin of error. Moreover, they only sampled 1,674 vegans whereas they sampled 98,876 meat-eaters.
Meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans all tested well within the normal, average IQ. Clearly, given the survey results as well as the well-reasoned discussion here made by vegetarians and vegans, veg*nism is no hazard to cognitive abilities.
- ElaineVigneault
August 29, 2008 7:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It actually makes sense
a) 20-29 yr vs 30-39 yr: Why wouldn't older people test higher on the IQ test? They would have a greater vocabulary, more education and more-developed brains etc.
b) Black hair vs blond hair: Could it be that people with black hair are more likely to speak English as a second language than blondes in Canada, thereby negatively affecting their scores on this English IQ test? You'd have to understand Canadain demographics, but this makes perfect sense.
c) lefties vs. righties: I don't believe that left handed people are less bright, but I think that they ultimately think differently, and are perhaps more intuitive. Albert Einstein, Lenardo da Vinci, and four of the last six presidents were left handed (Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton) and both Obama and McCain are left handed, and one of them will be the next President. (The probability of 5 of 7 randomly chosen people being left-handed is 0.06%)
There you go. Perfectly reasonable explanations for other variations in IQ from this test. Now my argument about meat eaters and vegetarians still stands.
See my above posts regarding statistical significance. The gap between vegans and meat eaters is HUGE and 1,600 is a respectable sample size for such a significant difference.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 11:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you serious?
1. Just because you can come up with explanations doesn't make any of them true.
2. The "gap" between meat-eaters and vegans is NOT "huge." It's 6 points. Coincidentally, it's the same difference between people who drink wine and people who abstain from alcohol.
3. You ignored the issue of margin of error.
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 1:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes I am
1. When you listed these three examples of IQ variation, I was assuming that you were attempting to prove that the test was bogus. I was merely offering logical, reasonable explanations. Are you saying that these differences SHOULDN'T exist? You decided to dismiss the whole thing because of these differences, which is an unreasonable approach.
2. The gap between beer drinkers and wine drinkers was found to be 2.07 points (estimated at 0.09). The difference between Vegans and meat eaters was found to be 6.16 points (estimated at 5.28). That is not the same difference; that's 3 x the difference, and estimated to be higher. Oh, and I reiterate that the difference between vegans and meat-eaters IS huge.
3. No I did not ignore the issue of margin of error, you just didn't bother to read the above posts and refuse accept that it is statistically significant. With 1,674 respondents for vegans, over 10,000 for vegetarians, and over 90,000 meat-eaters, the differences are statistically significant. Consider that in IQ, the mean is 100 and one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 103.69 and 109.85 is 14.7% of the population. That's huge. With a survey size of 1,600 people, the margin of error is less than 3%. Between mere vegetarians and meat-eaters, the gap is much smaller, which makes sense, since vegans are more likely to be nutritionally deficient because they are excluding more foods from their diet. The difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. But the margin of error is also much greater, since the sample size is 6.6 times larger for vegetarians and vegans.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 8:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Errors in your reasoning
1. You misunderstand my point. If you can dream up explanations for the 20-somethings, the blonds, and the lefties, surely you can find a more reasonable explanation for the veg*ns than the one you proposed earlier. It's more reasonable to assume the difference isn't significant or that some other non-nutritional factor played a role.
2. I said non-drinkers, not beer drinkers.
3. The margin for error for the vegans is greater, not for the meat-eaters, because a smaller sample size is less representative of the whole.
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 12:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This doesn't make any sense
1. "It's more reasonable to assume the difference isn't significant or that some other non-nutritional factor played a role." - Then what? You've offered nothing. I offered reasonable explanations. You are just complaining because you don't like my conclusion. Iron deficiency would do it for vegans, or lack of protein. There are lots of dietary explanations. You haven't even offered a theory that could explain the magnitude of the difference.
2. Oops my bad. This is likely driven by the fact that people 20 and under can't drink, and these people scored much lower. Still, it makes sense.
3. I know. What's your point? The sample size is 1,674. But given the magnitude of the difference, it is still within the margin of error.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 2:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
IQ test indicating health?
With all due respect, I suggest you to search for health and nutrition studies if you want to claim that this or that diet is "healthier" or not nutritionally apt for humans.
The ADA's position on vegetarian diets (vegan included) might be of interest for you.
You say that brain performance is an indicator of health. I think this is not necessary so. But even if it is, I think that relying on an IQ test to measure "brain performance" it's rather narrow.
Intelligence, as a whole is a very difficult thing to measure at all. The characteristics that form a part of what we usually regard as "intelligence" (without even considering contemporary extensions like "emotional intelligence", "social intelligence", etc.) are so vast --imagination, comprehension, evocation, memory, etc.-- that a any test will always fall short.
For all of this, and as I usually argue, I believe we can never say that there is such thing as "equality" of intelligences. Therefore, we humans commit the logical mistake of arguing that the opposite of "equal" it`s "higher" or "lower", when the opposite of "equal" is "different".
So the question, "which intelligence is superior to the other?" is question that lacks of sense, to which we can only answer with the absurd assumption that "intelligence" can be measured quantitatively.
But all of this is irrelevant. I might be genetically "dumber" than you. Maybe that's why I chose to be a Vegan. Or maybe I'm less intelligent because I'm not getting enough saturated fat or cholesterol. Who knows?
But the question should be, is there a moral justification for us to be using, exploiting and/or killing other animals? A supposed lower IQ result isn't a matter of "necessity".
What if tomorrow we discover that raping women, or eating baby's flesh makes you score higher in IQ tests. Are we going to start raping women or eating baby's flesh?
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 4:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interesting points
You make some interesting points. I don't think that IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence, but that doesn't mean that it's irrelevant either.
Is there a moral justification for us to be using, exploiting and/or killing other animals? - Yes. It's natural behavior. Animals kill other animals for food. I think that people can decide for themselves whether this is ethical. How can we as a society can't ask humans not to eat flesh of other animals when animals do it? I maintain my ethical position, and don't really care what yours is unless it interferes with mine.
Are we going to start raping women or eating baby's flesh [if we discover that raping women, or eating baby's flesh makes you score higher in IQ tests]? - No. And give me a break. This is not natural behavior.
- LiberalMulroney
September 1, 2008 5:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Natural behavior - Moral justification?
First of all, I think that relying on the "natural behavior" thing, it's rather odd.
I believe that what's "natural" it's what takes place in "nature". Since all we know happens in "nature", I tend to think that everything is "natural". Therefore, I don't see how what's "natural" can be of any help to decide what's morally justifiable or not.
I fail to see what is "not natural" about rape, for instance. People do it due to a "natural" inclination to do it. Everything on it seems natural to me.
The problem is not that. The problem is that raping involves violating or ignoring someone else's interests. That's the same issue with enslaving, exploiting and killing other animals. Not whether it is "natural" or not.
Your "ethical position" interferes with someone else's liberties and interests (other animals in this case), and that's why it is NOT a matter of "personal choice".
How can we as a society ask humans not to rape females, when other animals do it? How can we as a society ask humans not to kill other humans, when other animals kill individuals of their own species?
Primarily, because getting our morals from the behavior of others, especially when they are from other species, it's simply absurd. Human morality comes from critical thinking, not from other animals' behavior.
I don't know whether other animals have morals. I certainly know I do.
I don't know whether other animals (especially carnivores) can survive without killing or otherwise exploiting other animals. I certainly know I can.
This is enough to make our own decisions, and form our ethics, regardless of the actions of other animals. That's why we can say that rape or homicide is immoral.
Yes, other animals kill other animals to eat. Yes, other animals rape females. Yes, other animals kill female's offsprings in order to reproduce with them. Yes, other animals fight and even kill each other for territory or for get the females (again).
Those are "natural" behaviors. Does it mean that humans, therefore, are morally justified to do the same with others?
Of course not. Claiming that it's just not reasonable.
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 6:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We need to eat something
Interesting, and very eloquently put. Again, I think your logic is a bit of a stretch. You are jumping between sociology and nature here with touchy and sensitive subjects. If animals rape one another or kill each other's young, it is either an anomaly or necessary for survival. For humans, rape is an anomaly (albeit all too common). But in human society we have rules to protect people's rights, and such actions are thus forbidden.
In your argument you refer to animals as "someone." Someone is a person, a human who as yo put it can think critically, and an animal is not. Frankly we need to eat other living things for food, whether they be plants or animals. The difference are pain receptors. But do they not both have the same right to live? If we could kill an animal and minimize the pain, is that any less ethical than killing a plant?
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 1:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anomalies
The frequency or prevalence of a behavior should not dictate right from wrong. This prevalence, however, often makes it difficult for people to see the immorality. Owning slaves was once commonplace. I would say that today, someone who feels that a different race is inferior enough to justify their enslavement is an anomaly. This, alone, doesn't make slave ownership wrong.
As for necessity, it is not a valid argument for the consumption of animal products by humans.
Rights can only exist in regards to their protection of interests. It is in defining these that we can focus the debate where it should remain: "do animals have rights?" and "are we justified in violating them?"
As for the rights of plants, there are fairly strong arguments about what it takes to have rights that seems more logical than only including humans. It is apparent to me that animals have rights. Whether or not plants do, has no bearing on my respecting of animal rights to the very best of my abilities.
- mike
September 2, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another Dogma od Cultural Prejudice
Mulroney:
You say that nonhuman beings cannot be persons, supposedly because they “can’t think critically.” Why is the ability to “think critically” is required for personhood? Please remember mentally disabled humans who cannot “think critically” when you respond. I realize that Kant and many others have arbitrarily put the dogma forth that an ability for abstract reasoning is “required” for personhood and inclusion in the moral community, and I realize that this dogma has been accepted as a strong cultural prejudice for a long time, but like most dogmas, it has never been justified, only blindly accepted.
- dan September 2, 2008 8:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Read my post more carefully
I was referring to someone else's statement about critical thinking.
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 8:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eat something...not somebody!
Someone is a person, indeed. I suggest you to get Gary Francione's book "Animals as persons". It seems to fit perfectly with our current discussion.
Although most of us think of a "person" as synonym with "human", we should first consider what does it take to be a person.
Do you think that an individual, sentient being, with particular interests, wants, preferences, likes and dislikes would fit in your view of a person?
I think it does.
Do other animals fit with this view? Absolutely!
As Mike already argued, rights are a way to protect interests. So, if a being has basic interests, he should have rights to protect them, regardless of species, sex, gender, sexual inclination, intellectual capacity, etc. A right-bearer, therefore, it's someone with legal "personhood". A person. That's the animal rights position. All sentient animals are persons, and should be protected as such.
Critical thinking it's a characteristic that isn't relevant for most conflict of interests. As Mike also said, severely retarded humans, just as babies and old senile humans, cannot think critically or in abstract terms. Nevertheless, they have other interests, by the very fact that they are, indeed, sentient. That's why we protect their interests, even if they can't think critically.
And to say that NO other animals can think in abstract terms it's just a over-simplified generalization. Most of our "common knowledge" about other animals amounts to nothing but a gross ignorance. No facts. No logic.
I suggest you to read some things on "Ethology" (the study of other animals' behavior). I can assure you'll be more than surprised about their capacities (reason, self-consciousness, abstract thinking, among others).
Plants, on the other hand, have no characteristic we can relate to "sentience", thus it's unreasonable to think they can have "interests" or "awareness". Whether they are alive it's irrelevant. After all, bacteria, tumours, spermatozoids and so on, are indeed alive. But that doesn't mean they are individual "beings" with interests that should be protected.
In all honesty, I don't think you consider it's the same to cut a broccoli in two, and doing the same with a dog.
And, even if this isn't enough for you, it's worth reminding you that it takes between 8 to 16 kgs. of grains to produce 1 kg. of flesh, so switching to a Vegan diet does, in fact, kill far less plants AND animals than any other diet.
Finally, killing an animal (human or not) whether painlessly or not, it's still harming that animal, since he/she has interests in continuing to live and living positive experiences. The same can be said with enslaving and exploiting them. That's why eating "meat" is not "less wrong" than eating other animal products.
That's it for now. Ehh, mmm... Go Vegan! ;)
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 2, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Getting tiresome
Wow, that was a long chain of rationalization. I haven't read this book of yours, but it seems to have really influenced you. But your arguments rely on a whole bunch or arbitrary declarations, such as what a person is and is not.
Frankly I disagree. I disagree with you about what a person is. I don't think that we can arbitrarily decide that perceived sentience or awareness are what make the difference between ethical and non-ethical killing.
I am going to have to leave it at that. I am seriously outnumbered here by people who are quite passionate.
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 8:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Comparing meat eating to veganism is like comparing apples to oranges
Animals eat plants. So consuming animal life (eating meat) isn’t the opposite of consuming plant life (eating a vegan diet), it’s consuming plant life indirectly. That is, eating meat is consuming plant life filtered through animal life. People who consume animals are consuming, on average, four times the resources of people who consume only plants.
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/4-questions-to-vegans /
- ElaineVigneault
September 2, 2008 12:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor reasoning
I'm sorry, but this is scientific elitism. You are just coming up with arbitrary explanations for these statistics, and your solution is clearly biased in favor of maintaining the status quo: meat-eating. As for me, I'm not going to lie: I favor an animal-free diet. For ethical reasons. As you said, it's not that people on an animal-free diet can't be healthier. What you neglected to mention is that it can also be very easy to be healthier. The problem is being vegan in a non-vegan world. If we lived in a vegan world, I'd say good luck trying to live on a meat-based diet. Meat-eaters would be in my position as a vegan. But unlike meat-eaters, vegans actually have an ethical reason for choosing their diet, which gives us the collective power to challenge the status quo.
So whatever your statistics, your interpretation ignores the fact that we live in a meat-eating world. It ignores the fact the most vegans do not go vegan for health reasons, but rather for ethical reasons, and that most meat-eaters challenged by veganism stay meat-eaters (partly) because they don't know how to find or do not have the privilege of a healthy animal-free diet. Now, I'm sure there are legitimate health reasons to go vegan, but they would never have made me go vegan. As vegans, we need to get our arguments straight and (unlike PETA) present a veganism that is sustainable... a vegan diet that is healthy AND ethical. One thing meat-eaters will never be able to say honestly is that the ethics of their diet stands up to that of an exploitation-free vegan diet.
- Ciuma
November 30, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor reasoning indeed
You really didn't address the point I made at all. You simply labeled it and indicated that you don't like it. My interpretation does not ignore the fact that most people do not go vegan for health reasons. You just made that assumption. Your supposed reasoning is just a rant in which you express frustrations about living in a meat-eating world. Frankly, this discussion ended a long time ago and you missed it.
- LiberalMulroney
December 1, 2008 8:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Irrevelant to the Arguments Made
This is irrevelant to the arguments presented.
Further more your link is completely biased and unaccurate. Less then 2000 vegans were surveyed. According to the chart, those outside Canada have the lowest IQ.
Did you take a look at Dr. Franciones Creditentials? He has two masters, in philosophy and in law. I think it takes a smart person to do that.
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here we go again
You really should try reading the whole thing before jumping in to a discussion that ended 6 months ago. It's pretty obvious that the lower IQs for those outside of Canada is easily explainable by the fact that the IQ test was in English, and would therefore be biased against those whose first language is not. People outside Canada who participated in this test would likely have disproportionately more non-native English speakers than the rest. This poll is more pop-culture than science, but still we were discussing possible explanations for the vegan numbers.
I have already explained that 2,000 is a significant enough sample size for such a large difference in IQs to be statistically significant. And I love the irony that half your post incorrectly suggests that 2,000 is not a significant enough sample size, and the other half of your post uses a counterexample of a sample size of one person who is presumably of above average intelligence.
I have no doubt that there are people who are vegans and are also fiercely intelligent. There are also others who really bring down the average.
- LiberalMulroney
March 14, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My repsonse
LOL, Your right that my post was contradictary...
However...
my point with the people outside of canada is that the survey could be biased or inaccurate. It also does not state what age the people participating in the survey are, and i was just trying to say that you can`t take the survey as hardcore truth.
And BTW i just took an IQ test, and i think its very biased. Depending on the test it will skew your results. For example i scored horribly low in the mathy parts and quite high in the english, and i get high 90s in english and low 70s in math....
But to return to my previous point... You don`t have to have a high IQ to be compassionate and to understand the arguments presented. Its irrelevant.
Anywho i`ve spent to much time here, enjoy the rest of your live
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 6:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agh
I didn`t get to finish my post..
i was going to say enjoy the rest or your life, i`have more important things to do, but that would come out as rude.... Anyway, I guess we`ll agree to disagree i`ll go save the animals and you`ll sit at home on your computer.
Lol that came out as rude to =P
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 6:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should we kill?
The question is a dodge of the larger and more significant question - is it right for us to kill to survive? Again, that we must kill to live is beyond question. That we claim that "life is precious" is also beyond question. The question then becomes, who or what deserves to live and who or what deserves to die - according to our collectively agreed upon set of values?
Should we eat plants? Should we eat animals? Should we eat? Do we deserve to live? Do we deserve to be eaten? Whose values reign supreme?
- Naumadd
July 24, 2008 8:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Naumadd is speciesist.
If I am clinically starving to death in a place where vegetation will not sustain me and I come upon you and a seal at the same time it would be more ethical for me to eat you cause your chances of survival in that milieu are less than the seal. The seal has just as much right to life as a human animal. Your argument is no different from a slave owner arguing for why slavery is right.
Once you elevate beyond "supreme values" you will see that "humanity" is not on the top of anything. Thank you Joan Dunayer for making me a more informed consumer.
- M3house
August 15, 2008 12:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You Decide
You make a relativist argument so I offer a relativist response:
The majority of Americans value animal lives. Most Americans find the act of killing animals so repulsive that they're unwilling to do it themselves. Though they pay others to do it, the majority wish animals didn't have to suffer. This is evidenced in the increasing demand for stricter animal protection laws and in the increase in vegetarianism.
According to a Gallup poll ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/107293/PostDerby-Tragedy-38-Support-Banning-Animal-Racing.aspx ): 35% of Americans strongly support and 64% support passing strict laws concerning the treatment of farm animals. “A quarter of Americans say animals deserve the same rights as humans, while almost all of the rest agree that animals should be given some protection from harm and exploitation.”
But ultimately, it's not about the majority. It's about each individual. You can choose to cause unnecessary suffering and death in order to please your taste buds or you can choose the kinder, healthier, and more sustainable plant-based diet.
- ElaineVigneault
August 29, 2008 7:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mass Production, not Mass Disgust
The majority of americans do not value animal lives equally with human lives as the majority of americans are meat-eaters. Also to say that people buy meat pre-processed because they are disgusted wiht doing it themselves is simply wrong. People by pre-processed meat because it is faster, cheaper, and easier.
- OolonColluphid
September 4, 2008 3:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
regarding equality
You don't have to value animal lives equally in order to stop eating meat. In fact, you can think they're inferior to humans. All you have to believe is that animals don't deserve to be treated cruelly.
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 9:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Again the point is missed ...
You must destroy to eat. It's that simple. Although I'm the occasional eater of meats, I am well aware of the harm caused to animals to supply it to me and, just as I want to minimize my impact on plants, I want to minimize my impact on animal life. My diet is restricted to only one meal a day. To value the lives of animals over those of plants is only half the compassion you ought to feel toward the fact - you must destroy to eat. Destroy at least in a most reverent way to all life, not simply a portion of it. As I asked, do we deserved to live? Should our values reign supreme on Earth? By what standard? By what argument? By what right?
Also, every value is relativist. Values cannot exist outside of specific context.
- Naumadd
September 6, 2008 3:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
mimizing impact
Eating only plants is eating lower in the food chain and thus is truly minimizing one's impact on the Earth. For more, read The China Study, The Thrive Diet, Diet for a New America, Diet for a Small Planet, or:
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/to-fight-global-warming-ditch-those-burgers /
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/we-can-change-the-world-one-meal-at-a-time /
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Choice ...
Yes, choice is precisely what we're talking about. All that you think, do and say is necessarily humanocentric and, therefore, relativist. There is no escaping that. Such is the nature of values that they are always context-dependent. Even your concern over the suffering of other species, although only favorable to some and prejudiced to others, is a human prejudice. Even if we assume compassion in wild animals, their particular compassions will be centric to their species and to the individual organism. You will not find a universal value, nor can you hold such a value that does not and cannot exist.
As I said originally, the meat vs. non-meat question is only a portion of a larger question - ought we kill to survive? The answer to that is straight forward - whether it be animal or vegetable, we MUST kill to survive. The question then comes - on what basis do we make our decisions concerning what we will and what we will not? There are no universal values to choose from so, we must create our values from our relativist point of view. My original point was this - one can value plants over animals, animals over plants or, to be consistent, value all life as it relates to your own - assuming you do love your own life. Certainly, there are interesting arguments for an entirely vegetable human diet and I am convinced by many of them, however, I am aware that all arguments are necessarily to a human point of view.
Our concern over suffering and "unnecessary" suffering is a choice.
- Naumadd
September 6, 2008 4:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reasons to choose vegan
You said, "we MUST kill to survive. The question then comes - on what basis do we make our decisions concerning what we will and what we will not?"
The basis vegans choose is one or more of the following:
1. animals' sentience/ the capacity to feel pain
2. human health
3. the environment/ global warming
4. feeding the poor/ equality of resources
5. our conscience/ religious
5. worker rights/ human safety
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 9:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sorry, you missed the point ...
I'm neither for nor against eating meat. I'm simply for my own survival. I will do so in as compassionate a way as I'm able but, of course, my compassion for that which I must kill to survive is quite uncommon among the other species. Found starving, I doubt seriously the lion gives a damn about my right to live. Even worse than "speciesist", I am a species of one. My own survival is primary in my mind. If it comes to your life or mine, I choose mine. I would choose not to be in that situation and would work very hard to avoid it but, there it is. That is genuine love of one's own life WITH compassion for other life as much as is practical and still survive. For your information, I eat very little meat but, when I do, I do so without guilt but still fully conscious of the life that's been lost to feed me. As I indicated, the responsibility is not to survive without killing - that is impossible for human life and just about every other. The responsibility is to survive by killing in an authentically conscious and compassionate manner. I doubt many vegetarians mourn the loss of the lives of the plants they consume. If they do not, it matters little they are vegetarians. They continue to kill with little compassion for the loss of life. Conscious and compassionate survival is the most reasonable way, far superior to the almost mindless gluttony and finger pointing so common to our species.
- Naumadd
August 30, 2008 12:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Regarding Survival
"If it comes to your life or mine, I choose mine."
I agree with that statement and would choose my own life as well.
However, the animals you eat are probably herbivores. Your analogies involving carnivores simply don't work. The cow who became your steak never posed a threat to you, except as the steak in the form of heart disease or Mad Cow Disease. The fish who became your sushi never posed a threat to you, except in the form of food poisoning or mercury poisoning. The chicken who became your buffalo wings never posed a threat to you, except in the form of Salmonella and high cholesterol.
"The responsibility is to survive by killing in an authentically conscious and compassionate manner."
It isn't a matter of survival. It's a matter of taste.
You choose to eat animals because they taste good, not because you have to. It's not about survival at all. Don't delude yourself and others into thinking you need to eat animal flesh. Countless vegetarians and vegans prove it's not about survival.
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 1:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Threats ...
As far as I know, most if not all carnivores primarily kill other animals - herbivores primarily - to feed, not due to threat. Regardless, along with other species, human beings are omnivores and need not apologize for it to other human beings or, if the day should come, to other species. You wish to compel guilt according to your own standards. I am not compelled. I'm satisfied I do not kill nor by proxy kill needlessly for my own survival. I eat meat, but not primarily. I eat one meal a day relatively safely to limit my consumption of food regardless of its source and for various reasons, not the least of which is to minimize my impact on other life - sentient or not. Not many people, vegetarian or otherwise, can say the same nor, I'll wager, are many as reverent in their consumption as I am and others like me. If you find it ridiculous to give authentic thanks and feel authentic regret or pain for eating a potato or a leafy salad, I'd suggest you genuinely rethink and rebuild your own empathy for all other life, not simply for other animals you judge capable of suffering or "sentient". I feel no guilt that I must eat or for the specific things I eat, however, I'm deliberately and consciously aware of what has been lost in my doing so which keeps me conscious, compassionate and deliberate in future actions. The best goal is a mindful life in all things, not unhealthy extremism. Of course, extremism is your right and privilege.
- Naumadd
August 30, 2008 5:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
on reverence
Just because you're thankful or reverent doesn't mean you're right. If you asked an animal if they'd prefer that you be thankful or that you be vegan, they'd say "vegan!"
- ElaineVigneault
September 2, 2008 1:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Suffering
No, the question is: Can we survive without forcing another being to unnecessarily suffer? Your appeal to plants, then, is erroneous. Further, even assuming the sentience of plants, which is unfounded, our processes funnel plant protein (e.g., between 5-15 pounds depending on the nonhuman) through nonhumans so as to produce one edible pound of animal protein. We can, therefore, remove the nonhumans from the process - and thus, stop unnecessary suffering in this regard - and consume the plant protein directly. Therefore, on your own premise, we ought to all be vegans because "less life is lost."
- Alex M
August 30, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On Sentience ...
I made no mention of the sentience of plants because it is immaterial to the discussion. As I've said, that we must kill life in order to sustain our own survival is without question. Sentient or not, killing plants to eat is still the taking of life. It's rather inconsistent to claim that the taking of an animal life is wrong but the taking of a plant's life is not. Life is either precious or it is not. To me, it's immaterial whether the life I take to survive suffers or not. What matters to me is that I remain conscious of and compassionate toward the life I take and remain respectful and grateful for the sacrifice. My focus is whether or not I pursue my own survival mindlessly and with little to no thought or feeling regarding the life lost in the process. If anyone wishes to live their lives eating primarily or only plants, that's great. I try to come as close to that as I'm able without extremist thinking or practice. I always choose the middle road of sensibility. My point earlier was this - whether you remain primarily a herbivore, carnivore or omnivore - do so in humility, with compassion and respect for the life you take. The "sentience" of that life is irrelevant to the fact you are killing to survive. We humans may or may not be unique in our ability to care about the suffering or destruction we cause. Regardless, because we can care, we must care. To become apathetic to the destruction you cause is a betrayal of your own life specifically, and a betrayal of the fullest potential of our species in general.
I eat meat and I will not apologize for it, however, what meat I consume I do so in as reverent a manner as I'm able. It seems some may be making some rather unwarranted assumptions about my eating habits of which you cannot know any detail. I ask that you read the words carefully I've written. You are vegetarian or vegan and I salute your devotion to the lifestyle. I must ask, however, how reverent are you for the life you must take - sentient or not?
- Naumadd
August 30, 2008 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On mumbo jumbo
Naumadd, your idea of "compassionately" and "reverently" inflicting unnecessary suffering and destruction on sentient creatures is, uh, wonky, to put it mildly. Plants don't care what happens to them. Sentient beings, human and non-human, do care. That's what sentience is about. Inflicting unnecessary suffering and death "in humility, with compassion and respect for the life you take" is a joke in bad taste -- perhaps the result of coming under the influence of some New Age guru? If you wish to live a life of compassion and reverence for others, I suggest you keep in mind the Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.
- Beast Man
August 30, 2008 8:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Half-measure compassion
If I "treated others as I wish to be treated", and because I value my own life and would not choose to loose it, I would not take any life at all and would starve, as would you. As I said, the sentience of one's kill is irrelevant. In the fact we must eat to survive, nature has seen to that truth. That you are "sentient" and are able to feel compassion for what you kill is at issue. You can choose to freely or selectively exercise that compassion or not. That you must kill is without question - as I've also said. You call the killing of another animal unnecessary and the killing of a plant necessary. I would submit that, in many contexts, those necessities could quite possibly and probably be reversed, thus, the necessity you claim is relative. I do not consider a vegetarian lifestyle or that of an omnivore or carnivore to be inherently good or bad. The value of each is to be estimated by the individual within the context of their own life. There cannot be a universal morality here. By my own judgment which I trust, and even though it is a limited need, there are times when I consider it necessary to eat meat and times when it is not necessary. So too the plants I consume. In any event, the sentience of my "kill" is far less relevant than my own thoughts and emotions in the act. I can feel compassion for what life I take to survive or can choose not to. I choose to have compassion for all life - seemingly sentient or not according to my own judgment. I choose a compassionate balance more in line with the bulk of what is true of nature and of the living organisms of which we're aware. You choose a half-measure compassion with an extremist's approach - animals bad, plants good - and expect others to fall in line with your half-measure lifestyle. Such is your choice but, I cannot agree with it any more than you can agree with mine. So be it, and good luck.
- Naumadd
August 31, 2008 2:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Extremist approach - humans bad, other animals good -
Hi Naumadd,
I have just one question for you. Do you put humans in the same equation as other animals and plants? Cannibalism, as omnivorism, carnivorism, vegetarianism and veganism, are not inherently good or bad, and that the value of each must be estimated the individual within the context of their own life?
Would you agree with people that kill other humans in "humility", with "compassion" and "respect"?
If you would agree with that, and think it's ok to kill humans because, "hey, we gotta kill to live!" then I can't argue. You'd be completely consistent with your stated belief.
If you would not, could you explain why? Why such an "extremist" position - "humans bad, other animals and plants good?"
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 2, 2008 10:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On caring ...
Beast Man, perhaps plants do not care. In any event, YOU can care ... if you choose to. That's the real issue here. Are you angry that wild carnivores kill to eat, or is your anger limited to killing by human beings? Why limit the policing to human beings? By your thinking, ought we not also police the wild beasts to ensure there is no "unnecessary suffering"? Who decides what is necessary suffering and what is not? By what standard? By what values? By what right?
- Naumadd
August 31, 2008 2:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Inevitable Response
Quote:
"By your thinking, ought we not also police the wild beasts to ensure there is no "unnecessary suffering"?"
To begin, a carnivore killing other animals for food is not "unnecessary." We do not require these products to live happily and healthily, whereas carnivorous animals would die in the absence of flesh. So, it's not unnecessary. In regard to omnivores in the wild, many of them, like us, have evolved to exist without flesh. However, we are the only species, as far as we know, capable of guiding our actions and leveling our impulses with moral reasoning. Therefore, as it is unnecessary, we ought to eat a diet free from flesh and sexual excretions.
The question, then, is: Does it cause less suffering to act paternalistically throughout the whole of the wild world and prevent omnivores from killing other animals or would these actions, which would have to include making sure they eat enough plant matter to be healthy, controlling their actions to a very great degree, etc., cause further harm? The vegan response is simple: Yes. As we would have to literally remove these animals from nature, more suffering would necessarily result so we should, therefore, adopt a principle of respect for their nature and allow them to exist freely (unless conflict is literally inevitable).
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 7:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unnecessary Suffering
Quote:
"Who decides what is necessary suffering and what is not?"
Unnecessary should involve "convenience," "entertainment," "taste," or "habit," unless we are willing to extend this line of reason, and new definition of "unnecessary," to other aspects of our ethical reasoning.
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 7:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Moral Symmetry
If we accept that animals are moral agents and are moral equals then does that not mean that we must jail animals for killing other animals? After all if they are to be held to the same standard as humans in one regard it would be arbitrary not to hold them to that standard in another regard.
- OolonColluphid
September 4, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Naumadd
Quote:
" Life is either precious or it is not."
As the processes involved in turning experiencing beings into food require funneling plant protein through these nonhumans, which make's the outcome roughly 10 pounds of plant protein to 1 pound of animal protein, aren't vegans displaying more reverence for life by consuming the plant matter directly? Shouldn't you "apologize" for wasted life, regardless of whether or not we "care" if the animals are raised and killed with reverence for their life?
Quote:
"It seems some may be making some rather unwarranted assumptions about my eating habits of which you cannot know any detail."
I make no assumptions. On your own premise about "respecting life," less life is taken, more respect is shown, by avoiding the gluttony and wasted death involved in meat production. Therefore, aren't you a hypocrite, following your own line of reasoning, if you are not a vegan?
The only reason I mention sentience is because that is how the animal rights side is framed; therefore, the question remains (for us), Isn't unnecessary suffering evil?
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 6:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good grief...
No sane person can have compassion for plants. Plants are not sentient. To feel "compassion" for plants is to be seriously misinformed about biology or to be in the grip of a self-serving delusion that justifies the unnecessary killing of sentient creatures on the basis that there is no difference between them and plants.
- Beast Man
March 19, 2009 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
OK
After reading your lengthy discussion here I congratulate you on a well argued point. I disagree regarding the equivalent morality of killing sentient versus non-sentient life and regarding the issue of suffering, but I take your point that this is a decision internal to me - not intrinsic to the life forms in question. We also don't have any perfect definition of sentience (coral? - its an animal) or suffering. I'm just more judgmental than you are.
I do wonder why you list yes on animal eating. Surely you don't feel that other people should eat meat even if they don't want to.
- Adam Hammond
September 3, 2008 2:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't have to kill to survive
Who deserves to live is not the questions.
If we were all supported animal rights there would be no domesticated animals, and therefor no reason to kill any animals. We bring animals into existence and enslave them and then kill them. If animal rights had a strong hold in our society we wouldn't have to decide who deserves to live, because there would be no animals there to kill.
Your last questions are kind of wierd. We should eat plants, shouldn't eat animals, should eat, we deserve to life, no one of a herbivous anatomy needs to eat anyone else, and its irrevelant whose values reign "supreme."
I don't think you read franciones argument, try it again=P
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 3:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not needed for health, and ethically wrong
Too many studies to mention here demonstrate that eating animal products is deleterious to human health.
Aside from the health implications, however, it is simply unethical to torture and kill any sentient being for the purposes of our human whim
The fact that dolphins play with their food is irrelevant. So did Jeffrey Dahmer. Please.
When the argument "the natural order of things" is invoked that's an immediate cue that the proponent understands little of what "natural order" really is. Lock yourself in a room, unarmed, with a lion and see who comes out alive, having eaten their lunch and dinner too. It is the "natural order" for the praying mantis female to kill her mate after copulation. Well heck if she can do it I think I should be able to. And so on...
- kelley August 4, 2008 8:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Plants, Trees and Mushrooms...
...have no central nervous system and no pain receptors. They are unable to feel pain or react to their environment in ways that animals are capable of doing. This is biology 101. Actually, this is eighth grade biology.
- kelley August 4, 2008 8:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals deserve better then PETA.
I've been a supporter of animal rights and a vegan now for nearly 20 years and at one time I believed that PETA did more good for the cause of animal rights rather than more harm.
I now see that they have damaged the cause by trivializing an important issue and turning off many possible supporters. Over the last 12 years or so they have made animal rights people and the issue itself seem CRAZY, trendy and hypocritical. By disregarding the actual lives of animals, by promoting bikinis instead of going vegan, and by making some people comfortable with killing animals as well as eating animals they have set back the movement (which does not even exist anymore) years and years.
- Phat P
August 6, 2008 1:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegan is best
No we shouldn't eat meat. We don't need it. There are plenty of nutritious plant foods available, even many "faux meats", veg milks and egg replacers for die-hard animal food lovers. There's no excuse for eating animals anymore.
The more you replace animal foods with plant foods the better it is for the animals, the planet, and if you take B-12 and avoid fats, sugars and processed food you're going to be way healthier too.
- SojournerTruth
August 7, 2008 5:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reciprocity?
Those who regard reciprocity as fundamental to discourses about "rights" fail (intentionally?) to acknowledge the inherent contradiction between our commonly held premises regarding infants or the mentally retarded, for example, and the exclusion of nonhumans from rights-based protection.
Surely an adult hog is more rational than a severely senile elderly adult. Therefore, it follows from this argument, that either the adult hog has a better claim to "rights" than the adult human, or neither have a sufficient claim and therefore are both excluded. But again, this does not conform with our practice, which means that the proponents of this argument are either illogical or demonstrably arbitrary.
- Alex M
August 9, 2008 8:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor argument
The Masai concept has already been well refuted, but I think it's also important to point out that your "impoverished American" example really just helps explain the oppositions point on how an entrenched paradigm can actually promote poor health. People with few means opting for lower caloric intake in favor of something they consider as a symbol of improved status do not comprise a good reason for violating the rights of other species.
- mike
August 12, 2008 11:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
we do as we're told
Someone on one of the better vegan forums posted this idea and i wanted to share it. Basically, if one were to seriously question their reasons for eating meat they'd realize that for the most part, they eat it because it has been deemed socially acceptable when in fact the meat and dairy industry is morally bankrupt, corrupt and about as antisocial as it gets. Accepting what the meat and dairy industry does to animals as being "natural" or "not that bad" is to be living in complete denial.
"There are people who accept anything as truthful or 'good' as long as it stems from tradition, national security, or TV."
sad but true
- Plissken August 18, 2008 4:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There's no reason to eat animals
Of course we shouldn't eat meat (animals) - there is absolutely no justification for it. There's astounding evidence that a plant based diet is better for the body and the planet. Consuming animal products, indeed (ab)using animals in anyway for "food", clothing, entertainment or science is not necessary. Stop feeding the mega-giant meat/animal industries. They are poisoning the planet and our bodies. They are murdering billions of animals needlessly. For health & heart -
Go Vegan
- Bea Elliott
August 27, 2008 11:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should we eat animals? No.
Before you read the rest of my response, go vegan for one month. If you're seriously considering whether you should eat animals or not, then you ought to stop eating animals long enough to make a clear decision between the two behaviors. Without experience, your decision will certainly be biased and flawed.
Now that the only readers are permanent or temporary vegans I can assume I don't need to dispel myths about veganism such as the myth that vegans are weak (vegans tend to be just as healthy or more healthy than meat-eaters) or the myth that it's too difficult to be a vegan (in today's society it's just as easy to eat vegan as it is to eat kosher or to follow any popular diet). I don't need correct people who say veganism is a privileged position only for the wealthy (poor people tend to eat less meat as a rule and don't have any major issue going vegan unless rich, powerful food lobbies make it hard for them). I don't need to explain where my protein comes from (beans, nuts, grains, vegetables, and fruits). And I don't need to prove that vegan food tastes great (there's a whole world of vegan food out there - plenty of it is extremely tasty).
And now that the only readers are permanent or temporary vegans I can assume the readers reading this come to the question of whether or not we should eat meat without meat-eating guilt and absurd rationalizations. Now we can have an honest discourse about meat-eating and veganism.
As you likely know, there are numerous reasons why people choose to eat animals or not. Here are some of the most compelling reasons we should not eat animals:
1. For The Animals: It's immoral to force animals to breed, live, and die according to our arbitrary whims. Animals feel pain and can suffer. They have desires and needs. They do not want to become your dinner. Since we don't need to eat animals to survive, we shouldn't eat animals.
2. For Your Health: Eating a plant-based, whole foods diet is healthy. There are numerous diseases associated with meat-eating. If you're concerned about your health, you should limit or eliminate meat-eating.
3. For The Future: Animal agriculture is a major polluter. If you care about the environment and if you care about stopping or slowing climate change, you should limit or eliminate your consumption of animal products.
Thank you for reading.
- ElaineVigneault
August 29, 2008 7:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vgans
I think people who eat plants and vegtables are disgusting criminals. These poeple take an innocent plant, created by God, and grind it into pulp for digestion. These plants have never killed another living creature on this earth and are not deserving of death. It has been proven that plants have feelings and respond to kind words and love. Anyone who kills and eats a plant is a murderer!
- Oasthad September 15, 2008 7:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I love the taste of meat
Anyone with all of the facts and information must accept the vast majority of PETA's argument except for one. Meat tastes great! That's why we eat it... all this talk about nutrition, happy chickens, and the environment seems disingenuous from the meat industry's point of view.
The Animal product industry really only has one tenable argument: Meat tastes great. None of that soy crap comes close. Viva la meat!
- speedplane
October 30, 2008 5:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I love the taste of good food
The argument about "taste" is genuine... but did you know that really "flesh" has no real "taste" it, like other foods is seasoned and spices to make it what we wish it be... There is no "meat" flavor - that's why so many meat analogs are so successful... they are duplicating not only texture but "taste"... the salty, peppery, spicey, "flavors" are recreated in plant based foods all the time...
But plant based foods also don't include some other major components of *meat* such as the tendons, veins, blood vessels, cancers, infections, scar tissue, boils, cysts, tumors, fat, drugs, chemicals pain and death. Are you serious that what you are eating is "food" at all?
And Vgan... put the plant thing away - it's really getting childish.
- Bea Elliott
November 6, 2008 6:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Meat is Good Food, therefore I like the taste of meat
Flesh most certainly has a taste. I will happily eat a well cooked steak without any seasoning or condiment sauce any day of the week. The crispiness of the slightly charred skin, the juiciness of the meat itself, the saltiness of the marbled fat... even just the way it holds together as you chew it.... I'm getting hungry just thinking about it.
I would argue that plants have much less taste by themselves than meat. How often do people sit down for a plain slab of soy? Or eat a salad with no dressing (no oil or vinegar)? Virtually all foods improved with seasonings or sauses.
You are right that plants don't include tendons, veins, blood vessels, boils, cysts, and tumors. However good meat doesn't have any of those things either. I am 100% for increasing quality control standards for meat.
You say that meat has lots of drugs and chemicals... but plants have them too. Its worse for plants, they're also genetically modified. There are no genetically modified animals which have been approved by the FDA for consumption. True, if you're worried about drugs and chemicals (a fear I think is overblown, but thats another story) you can get organic vegetables, but you can also get organic meat.
Your point about death is more of a religious one. From a purely atheistic standpoint, when you kill a plant you cause its death. If you think that animals have a soul and it should be revered, then that's another story... I'll leave it to the theologists.
Your one valid point is the animal's pain. I do feel bad for the animals pain. In fact I would be happy to spend a bit more money on meat to ensure that they had less miserable lives. But I just don't care enough to give up eating meat.
- speedplane
November 7, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Stop the "Humane" hooey already.
I'd actually have to challenge your point about what has "taste".A recent study examined the likes/dislikes of certain food products:
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/medizin_gesundheit/bericht -114690.html Published in the Journal of Consumer Research:8/08“Our present findings may have implications for efforts to promote better eating habits,” write the authors".“Heavy meat eaters claim that they eat meat because it tastes better than other foods, such as meat substitutes. Our results challenge that claim. Participants who ate the vegetarian alternative did not rate the taste and aroma less favorably than those who ate the beef product. Instead, what influenced taste evaluation was what they thought they had eaten and whether that food symbolized values that they personally supported." Tastebuds can be deceived based on preconceived notions.
Last month, The American Dietetic Association released these findings:consumption of whole grains- up 56%, 50% increased fruits and 48% increased vegetables over the past five years. On the other hand, 41% said they cut back on beef, 33% reduced their pork consumption and 23% reduced their dairy intake. http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/Overall_Findings_ADA_Trends_2008.pdf
There is a "raw-food" movement.People are discovering how delicious good food can be by it's self. But like a drug, artificial tastes and flavors have to be purged from your body before you can really enjoy the "real" stuff. It's not something that will happen over night. Just like most things that are worth having. Enjoyment of good food must be cultivated. It's very sad that even the best of parents miss the mark by allowing over-processed, un-natural foods rule at mealtimes.
No there are no genetically modified animal food products (yet).Consumers aren't ready and the industry is pacing themselves just like they did with cloned animal products.And technically, genetically "controlled" animals exist already. From bull semen auctions to pigs being bred without "stress genes". Did you know that because of all this tampering and inbreeding there's a scare in the poultry biz? http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/fresh-genes-nee.html?cid=13757 3556#comment-137573556 Chickens have been cross bred so much they have no resistance to illness or disease. Nature has a reason for diversification. Animal science in the name of greater profit and expediency has "mono-fied" most of what we eat.
We should be stressing more variety produced in sustainable ways, yet we do the opposite. We should be focusing on foods that replenish the air- yet we opt for "foods" that compromise it. We should be growing foods that use little resources in a responsible manner.Yet untold amounts of poop from factory farms leaches into ground water and contaiminates rivers. We're doing everything backwards.Deliberately.
Your free-range muscle meats are innoculated with dozens of vaccines, and are wormed several times before slaughter. They ingest chemicals to that are sprayed to discourage the growth of certain weeds that make cows sick.There's also insecticides that ward of flies, mosquitos, and the dreaded "cattle tick".Ranchers "borrow" grazing pasture from protected, conservation land.Ranchers also need to protect their livestock from predators which requires the slaughter of wolves, foxes, coyotes, bears.Bison "compete" for grass-1300 were slaughtered this year to provide more grass to your muscle meats.
- Bea Elliott
November 8, 2008 4:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Humanity - Meat - part 2
"From a purely atheistic standpoint, when you kill a plant you cause its death. If you think that animals have a soul and it should be revered, then that's another story... I'll leave it to the theologists". We are all our own theologists and spiritual advisors... Each of us knows what is "right and wrong"... Especially when it comes to killing: "Thy Shalt Not K*ll". We hardly need "advisers" to guide us through this very basic "rule"... even atheists get the principle. I remember my neighbor was horrified to learn that her young son bashed in the skull of a cat... I don't know that she would have had as much concern if he was out picking daisies instead. We are all horrified to hear the abuse of a single animal... the killing of an innocent (and helpless) being - Yet, the meat industry hires illegals, destitute, homeless people to work the knock-boxes at packing plants... and it all seems to make such good sense. (?)
Thank you for recognizing *one* valid point... that of pain. That is the crux of extending non-human animals "moral consideration"... that they - (like us) - feel pain. That they - (like us) - have an interest in their own lives. If we want to be consistent with our "humane" ethics we cannot do so and continue to kill/eat animals. The two concepts cannot logically occupy the same space within our values. Either we are or we are *Not* "humane". A "humane" culture would not attempt to justify suffering/killing because of "tastebuds". So let's stop with the "humane" hooey already - We are *Not* "humane" at all... we just like saying we are... It allows us to continue inappropriate behavior with cultural sanctions -
I respect that you say the animal's pain is not enough to warrant any consideration from you beyond your words... "I feel bad"... Your honesty is appreciated. However your insensitivity is deplored.
- Bea Elliott
November 8, 2008 4:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Humanity & Meat, etc
1) That study that you referred to on taste did a comparison between meat and vegetarian sausage rolls. A sausage roll is not exactly the meat industry's flagship product. Instead try comparing the taste of a grilled soy patty to a flame-broiled porterhouse steak.
2) Just because I am for eating meat doesn't mean I am also for eating processed foods. I don't like processed foods and only rarely purchase them. But you're right that eating meat is bad for the environment. But its not clear how bad it is (as a percentage of our total pollution)... and for now, I can rationalize it by taking public transit every day.
3) Being humane is not an on-off switch. Just because I don't hold an animal's pain to as high a standard as a human's doesn't make me inhumane.
4) I don't think I am insensitive to the pain and consequent death of animals. But in order to eat meat you have to kill an animal. Given that there is probably no such thing as an instant death, the animal will go through some amount of pain. It is something all meat eaters should accept.
- speedplane
November 8, 2008 6:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's Inhumane to Cause Suffering
So your saying that "taste" is reason enough (for you) to justify causing pain to an innocent being. The hunk of charred carcass aces the soy patty - regardless of the suffering or life of an animal victim... Those are some mighty demanding tastebuds! Are we eating to live by any chance?
Inhumane: Lacking pity or compassion
Deliberately killing animals causes injury and suffering. The only "switch" I'm aware of - is the one that you are using to define an action with an incorrect name... You cannot eat meat and call yourself "humane" or "compassionate"... nor can you say you care for animals while you consume their bodies. They are two opposite concepts. Smoke and mirrors do not mask this incongruance.
You don't think you are "insensitive to the pain and consequent death of animals"? Really? You're causing it!!! Repeat after me: I am inhumane. I am insensitive to the pain and consequent death of animals because *I eat them*. Yes, "animals go through some amount of pain". It is something all meat eaters should question the necessity of.
- Bea Elliott
November 10, 2008 8:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes... I'll kill for meat
> "So your saying that "taste" is reason enough (for you) to justify causing pain to an innocent being"
Nailed it on the head.
> "Are we eating to live by any chance?"
I think very few people in modern countries, including vegans, eat to live. Most of us live to eat.
Lets go back that part where you say I'm inhumane....
For me to be inhumane I must be "lacking pity or compassion". However I don't lack either of those. I try to be compassionate when I see someone I can help and I pity those who cannot help themselves. My compassion for humans knows no bounds. And I certainly have pity and compassion for animals which are tortured or abused. But you're right, assuming an animal has lived a humane and healthy life, I don't have much compassion for animals brought to slaughter.
But I can't be alone here. Surely there must be things that you don't pity or feel compassionate about. Do you feel as compassionate about bugs as you do to larger animals? Or forget that... do you feel as compassionate about animals as you do to humans? Surely there must be some "compassion" scale you put living things on. Fungi and plants are probably at the very bottom, then maybe bugs, then dumb animals like fish and so on.
A scaled system is the only rational way. You couldn't possibly hold everything to the same level of compassion. Nor could you ever split all living things into two groups: those you feel compassionate about and those you don't. Perhaps you could split them into three, four, or five groups of compassion, but then it starts looking like what everybody else uses: a gradated scale to rate the value of living things.
So, I have to ask then: if there is no scale, where do you draw the line? At what point are you willing to kill? I doubt you would ever use a mouse trap, but what about a roach traps? Is fishing ok? What about using pesticides to grow food? I would assume you would kill an animal if it were attacking you, but what if you were just terrified of it?
- speedplane
November 10, 2008 9:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
early man
Since humans have been around they ate meat to survive and without the meat they whould have been killed and there whould be no modern sociaty and by the way plants are liveing things too,
- kenn13
December 13, 2008 10:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God's Creatures
I believe in a world where there is safe place for all of God's creatures...right next to the mashed potatoes.
- jbritt March 11, 2009 4:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God Is Irrevelant
I don't know why you started talking about god, but she/he is irrevelant in this debate. And on the note of god, you can't hope to justify anything with the bible. The bible and Jesus were clear supporters of slavery, racism and sexism, all of which are frowned upon nowadays.
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 3:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your comment is irrelevant
I'm not sure what you mean by "God is Irrevelant". I don't know whether he is revelant myself as that is a word I am unfamiliar with. My comment was not really an argument, and I wasn't trying to use the Bible to justify anything. My comment was just a comment. Talk about your appropriate screen names. Keep screaming at nothing ScreamingChicken. I didn't come here to debate religion, but as long as you are going to castigate my religion I would ask you to quote where in the Bible it encourages slavery, racism or sexism. I mean that. Quote the Bible. Don't give me an anecdotal story about someone doing something bad under the banner of Christianity. There are plenty of bad people that did bad things in the name of Christianity, but that is the case bad people who exploited a religion using a deranged interpretation to justify their own evil deeds. Way to turn a light hearted comment into an unrelated attack on someone's religion. Are you one of those fervently anti-religion types that because you do not follow a religion you feel a need to try and strip others of their right to choose to follow a religion? Do you do this because religion is bad and you are looking out for the greater good? If so, kindly keep your fascism to yourself and stop looking for an opportunity to attack people for the slightest infraction against your personal beliefs. By the way, steak is delicious.
- jbritt March 16, 2009 7:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bumper stickers
I once saw a bumper sticker that read thus, "For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat two" While funny it represents the problem all this debate comes from. TOO MUCH. Too much of anything is bad for you meat is not an exception and neither are veggies. Surprisingly enough the food pyramid is mildly accurate about what our diet should look like but we are a country of excess. We love the big steak, the quadruple layer burger and the full rack of ribs.... with a side salad. Only in america do we order a bic mac, large fry and a DIET coke. Seriously people time to wise up. And to those who want to dispute about the no-meat diet being bad for you I have a little story.
Roughly a year ago I was in Ecuador doing some service work and some students from an American university came to take a census in an attempt to secure monetary sponsors for some of the disadvantaged children of the area. Now in the jungles of Santo Domingo Ecuador there is no shortage of greens to eat. Mango, pineapple, strange fruits and papayas the size of your head grow on every tree. There's an excess to the point that it rots in the streets. Carrots, beets, potatoes, and yuca are also ridiculously plentiful. Now while these children were being weighed and having their photos taken I was translating an interview for the students with the parents . The principle question asked was not about the amount of food the children were given, it was about the frequency of meat in those diets. "una vez a la semana, los domingos." (one time a week on sunday) was the most frequent response. That put these people on the top of the list. I'd also like to make special mention of the "meat" they eat. They have an odd style of dairy farming there. The fat cows live to produce milk until they're old and skinny then they're killed for meat. Making the meat scarce and laced with cartilage. It comes out paper thin and is pounded out further to make enough for the family. Meat is wanted. It's needed. Just like veggies. So next time you cut into that steak just be glad its more than 1/2mm thick.
- ecuadmail
April 24, 2009 9:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, but animals eat each other and we are animals
This a difficult quesiton for me logically. I am vegan, but I cannot say that all people should not eat meat . If people are animals as they are and animals kill and eat each other all the time (oftne killing each other in terribly cruel ways)- then why shouldn't humans logically do the same? Animals who are omnivores do kill herbivores and eat them all the time.
My only answer to this is that we must not eat meat because we are more aware than the animals of the hurt/cruelty this imposes on the animals being killed- but if I argue this then I risk falling into the trap of suggesting that humans are more moral than animals! Certainly, they are not.
- sor666
May 6, 2009 3:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Beyond vegetarianism....GO VEGAN
FOR THE ANIMALS
Despite the common belief that drinking milk or eating eggs does not kill animals , commercially-raised dairy cows and egg-laying chickens, whether factory-farmed or "free range", are slaughtered when their production rates decline. The same factory farm methods that are used to produce most meats are also used to produce most milk and eggs. These cows and chickens live their short lives caged, drugged, mutilated, and deprived of their most basic freedoms.
On U.S. farms, an average of 7 egg-laying hens spend their entire lives in a battery cage with a floor area the size of a vinyl record cover. Living on wire floors that deform their feet, in cages so tiny they cannot stretch their wings, and covered with excrement from cages above them, these chickens suffer lameness, bone disease, and obsessive pecking, which is curbed by searing the beaks off young chicks. Although chickens can live up to 15 years, they are usually slaughtered when their egg production rates decline after two years. Hatcheries have no use for male chicks, so they are killed by suffocation, decapitation, gassing, or crushing.
As with any mammal, cows produce milk only when pregnant and stop after their calves have been weaned. When a dairy cow delivers a female calf, the calf becomes a dairy cow herself, born to live in the same conditions as her mother. But when a dairy cow delivers a male calf, the calf is sold to a veal farm within days of birth, where he is tethered to a stall, deprived of food and exercise, and soon slaughtered for meat . Life is only a few years longer for the mother. Because it is unprofitable to keep cows alive once their milk production declines, dairy cows are usually slaughtered at 5 years of age. Thus, a cow's normal lifespan of 25 years is cut 20 years short just to cut costs and maximize production.
Today's farms are not like the ones most of us learned about in school; they are mechanized factories where an animal's welfare is of little concern compared to profit. Veganism emerges as the lifestyle most consistent with the philosophy that animals are not ours to use.
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Animal agriculture takes a devastating toll on the earth. It is an inefficient way of producing food, since feed for farm animals requires land, water, fertilizer, and other resources that could otherwise have been used directly for producing human food.
Animal agriculture's dependence on higher yields accelerates topsoil erosion on our farmlands, rendering land less productive for crop cultivation, and forcing the conversion of wilderness to grazing and farm lands. Animal waste from massive feedlots and factory farms is a leading cause of pollution in our groundwater and rivers. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has linked animal agriculture to a number of other environmental problems, including: contamination of aquatic ecosystems, soil, and drinking water by manure, pesticides, and fertilizers; acid rain from ammonia emissions; greenhouse gas production; and depletion of aquifers for irrigation.
In a time when population pressures have become an increasing stress on the environment , there are additional arguments for a vegan diet . The United Nations has reported that a vegan diet can feed many more people than an animal-based diet. For instance, projections have estimated that the 1992 food supply could have fed about 6.3 billion people on a purely vegetarian diet, 4.2 billion people on a 85% vegetarian diet, or 3.2 billion people on a 75% vegetarian diet.
FOR OUR HEALTH
The consumption of animal fats and proteins has been linked to heart disease, colon and lung cancer , osteoporosis, diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension, obesity , and a number of other debilitating conditions. Cows' milk contains ideal amounts of fat and protein for young calves, but far too much for humans. And eggs are higher in cholesterol than any other food, making them a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease. The American Dietetic Association reports that vegetarian/vegan diets are associated with reduced risks for all of these conditions.
Vegan foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and beans, are low in fat, contain no cholesterol, and are rich in fiber and nutrients. Vegans can get all the protein they need from legumes (e.g., beans, tofu, peanuts) and grains (e.g., rice, corn, whole wheat breads and pastas); calcium from broccoli, kale, collard greens, tofu, fortified juices and soymilks; iron from chickpeas, spinach, pinto beans, and soy products; and B12 from fortified foods or supplements.
With planning, a vegan diet can provide all the nutrients we were taught as schoolchildren came only from animal products.
- progressisdead
May 12, 2009 8:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
YES IS SO GOOD
Why not I love my beef,pork,veal,chicken,fish they are so good on the grill.I think I am going to cook me up a newyork strip stake now.this give me the munchies
- countryboy
June 14, 2009 9:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why not
Why not....it cant be any worse than all the pharmaceuticals they try to dump into our bodies.
- rkm
June 15, 2009 9:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reducing red meat consumption good for health
I would think it would be good for the president to address this issue simply by suggesting the benefits. It's good for your health . It's good for the health of the eccomy, the environment , and the spiritual health of people. We are rapidly increasing the level of cruelty in which we produce our cow beef and chicken. Meat is one of the easiest sources to get healthy food . IF we can introduce more nutritious foods into common consumption such as sea weed, and complex grains, we'd be saving the environment and ourselves. we can't cook like an irishman and excpect people to reduce their meat consumption. IT would take an observation of healthy alternative. It could really impact the world. It's a very big problem eating all this cow. we're destroying the world, ourselves, and our spirit. We're hitting a threshold.
- jxzac June 15, 2009 11:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes
If God wanted us to eat vegetables, he would have made them taste like cheeseburgers.
- mhambletonatc
June 23, 2009 10:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.