I am very scared of the vegan movement, they will try to take our right away to have companion animals.

[Black_Unicorn]

This is nonsense. The idea that you can only get protein from animals is bullshit (it isn't true). There are plenty of ways one can get protein from plant sources. Also, the idea that animal protein helped the human species "survive" is a myth. Animal-derived foods are not necessary to live a healthy life. The thing you said about feeding food to people is nonsense as well.

Actually all carnivores and probably most omnivores require certain nutrients from animal products to survive. Arthritis is a common carnivore complaint as their teeth suffer damage. Each of these species gained a hunting advantage from eating animals. To dismiss nature because it is against your principles is being unrealistic to evolution.

This is also not true. It is not possible to kill deer and also love them, because the act of killing a deer is itself immoral and is the opposite of loving them. It's like claiming it's possible to kill dogs and also love dogs at the same time (it's bullshit). There are ways of keeping ecosystems intact that don't involve killing / slaughtering animals.

You really live in a modern time bubble. Native American Indians loved the animals that gave them life and gave thanks for the sacrifice of their lives as food.

Having empathy towards animals means not killing them, and not supporting the killing of them. It's the same way that killing humans is viewed as wrong (except in certain circumstances such as the death penalty, euthanasia, etc.) -- the killing of any living being should be viewed as wrong.

If you have empathy for animals you have to accept that no one gets out alive. People or Carnivores that attack other people are usually dealt with in a summary fashion. Carnivores that are feeding themselves and their young are expected to kill. To be speciesist and declare that one animal on the planet should not eat meat because it is not natural is the definition of speciesism.

Your argument from nature (the idea that because non-human animals exploit other animals, humans can too) is part of a naturalistic fallacy. Just because something happens in nature does not mean humans have to automatically follow it.

Are you trying to declare humans are not natural or part of nature. This argument makes no sense, we share genes are brain function with most life on this planet. To try and seperate humans from animals is a poor argument at best.

Having a vegan diet does not have to be a "luxury". Also, the ecological footprint from meat-eating is far worse than the ecological footprint of being vegan, because animals such as cows require a lot of farmland, which results in the destruction of a greater number of forests (than a plant-based situation).

I would love to see real world data on the extent of crop growth per season and animal growth. Plants developed a sugar storage system after Chlorophyls started converting sunlight into life giving energy. Plants started to grow after dark when there was no chlorophyl activity. This stored sugar is a large part of the energy for animal life. Animals are a stored form of the energy a plant stores to survive seasonal gaps in growth of plants. So if you take the season grass growth that humans can't digest and over the growing life of an animal that can eat the grass you are making use of the land that cannot feed Vegans.

Just a reminder, that it is not possible to get meat from "ethical" sources, because killing an animal is wrong in and of itself.

I refer back to previous quote no one gets off this planet alive, we all die and we can all benefit new life. Ethical killing is any death to prevent or reduce suffering. My great grand mother is 101 only due to a lack of euthanasia laws. She is in immense pain every day and suffers on a daily basis. If she had a choice she would have happy to die in comfort 11 years ago. If you love animals you will realise that forcing them to live in pain because we are not allowed to kill them is cruelty.

It is speciesist to eat meat -- the reason for this is that it treats non-human animals as being simple objects that have "less value" than humans. The process by which an animal becomes meat is a cruel and torturous one, and it is one that is inherently unethical; thus, eating meat is inherently unethical. Even if an animal is killed without suffering, it is still immoral (in the same way that killing a dog without suffering is still immoral -- the act of killing is itself immoral).

Death comes to us all. Death is not moral or immoral it is just the end. How we as humans die or the quality of life an animal has can be defined by morals. Stallions that get injured badly in territorial disputes will purposely wander into areas where carnivores live to end their own suffering. Are they immoral for committing suicide. Are the carnivores immoral for taking advantage of easy food. Stop using morals to define death. Morals can only be applied in the quality of care and limiting of suffering.

You came across as someone that would leave an injured animal to suffer an agonising death because killing it would be immoral. Most biology researchers have to do as you are describing when studying wild animals as their intervention may disrupt the research. It is agonising for people to sit back and watch an animal suffering especially when a lead foramen will stop all discomfort.

It is not possible to "ethically harvest" deer, because "harvesting" (killing) deer is inherently unethical. By the way, sometimes when hunters hunt deer, the deer does not immediately die, and spends weeks suffering in the forest from its wounds. "Taking out" a deer is morally wrong, just as "taking out" (killing) any living being is immoral. People do not need to consume any animal-derived meat.

The nature of all animals is to breed and put a strain on their own food source to beat out other competing species. So by not killing a deer in the field you are helping nature reach the starvation point for the entire species in one area. As the number of prey in an area increases it supports a greater number of predators. Humans are the most organised and most humane control of numbers though in modern days we are not as efficient as we once were. IE we waste products we would have found a use for in the past.

The fact that you're comparing vegans with "flat earthers" is bullshit, and just shows where your morals are. You claim vegans have an "agenda", when in fact it is hunters and meat-eaters that have their own agenda.

I was not claiming Vegans have an agenda my comment was that Vegans and Flat earthers accept the evidence that supports their way of life but ignores other data that is in conflict with their ideology. There are groups of humans on this planet that can only eat meat for 6 months of the year or some that it is meat only all year round. This is just the way life is in these countries to say they are living immoral lives is just ridiculous.

The other part of my comment was that if we don't have farm land millions of animals will be wiped of the planet by Vegans.

Stop treating living beings as "meals" -- that is wrong. Deers are living beings with a right to live, just like humans, dogs, etc.

I could have fun at your expense by stating we are not eating live deer. Once the deer is dead it becomes food for plants and worms and bacteria, Nature does not like waste. There are a variety of bugs and insects that need dead bodies in certain stages of decomposition. Ever wondered why a BBQ draws in flies from miles around.

People who ate meat, then became vegan, then went back to eating meat (and claim it's "healthier" to eat meat) are ignorant and don't know what they're talking about. The reason for this is because eating a plant-based diet is much healthier than eating meat. Also, you're picking and choosing the stories of people that support your point of view. There are plenty of people out there who became vegan and did not go back to eating meat. Also, the notion that eating animal-based meat is required to maintain "energy" is a myth, and the notion that having a vegan diet is "unhealthy" is a myth.

Actually the American research show that 88% of Americans have never tried Vegy diets. 12% have but 10% have returned to a natural diet. 0.5% of the Vegy diets are Vegan but there is no data to show how long that 0.5% stay on the diet. Most will return to a natural diet for health reasons for some it will be cost or convenience. The myth is true in that a healthy diet gets a higher energy and nutrient density. A Vegan diet has been proven to be possible but at a higher cost.

This is nonsense -- the vegan movement is about compassion towards animals, and respecting their rights (and not going along with speciesism) -- it is not a "superiority complex and nothing else" as you claim.

I don't think the Vegan movement has any care for the animals they are campaigning against. If there are no farmers there is no one paid to care for the animals which means they will either be eradicated from the planet or left to die in horrific ways.

Think about how life works. Every cell in your body contains the DNA to make a new clone of you. There are billions of cells in your body. Those cells are the descendants of every cell that makes up other life on the planet. Your cells did not spontaneously develop they are the end product of food and competition for millions of years. In other words your life is owed to all of the animals your ancestors ate for the last 65 Million years.

Yet there is no cell in your body that contains you. Your essence, your life and your memories are not stored in one place in your body. Your meat is not who you are. We could clone your cell into a copy of you and it will not be you even though it is a direct copy of you. People get shot in the head all the time and suffer little to no change from the damage. Some religions talk about the spirit being seperate from the body in both humans and animals.

You have to accept that the Native Americans worship the spirits of the animals they ate to survive. They are sorry to kill the animals they must but they also give thanks to the animals that give them life.

 

[HyperWoof]

It is not possible to "ethically harvest" deer, because "harvesting" (killing) deer is inherently unethical. By the way, sometimes when hunters hunt deer, the deer does not immediately die, and spends weeks suffering in the forest from its wounds. "Taking out" a deer is morally wrong, just as "taking out" (killing) any living being is immoral. People do not need to consume any animal-derived meat.

The fact that you're comparing vegans with "flat earthers" is bullshit, and just shows where your morals are. You claim vegans have an "agenda", when in fact it is hunters and meat-eaters that have their own agenda.

Stop treating living beings as "meals" -- that is wrong. Deers are living beings with a right to live, just like humans, dogs, etc.

*Sigh*
Why do I bother.

You're right, sometimes that does happen, it's rare and a hunter is required by law to pursue the animal and dispatch it if by any means possible. But that is the kind of death you are saying these animals should suffer naturally on the regular, so I fail to see your point.

You haven't addressed how much hunting contributes to conservation efforts in funding alone. Source: (https://elknetwork.com/hunting-conservation-paid-hunters/)

And no I am not comparing vegans to flat earthers, I am comparing YOU to flat earthers. You flat out deny what is a commonly known and scientifically backed fact, simply because it does not line up with what you consider ethical. So go and party with the anti vaxxer moms on facebook and be gone thank you sir.

 

[Black_Unicorn]

You haven't addressed how much hunting contributes to conservation efforts in funding alone. Source: (https://elknetwork.com/hunting-conservation-paid-hunters/)

It is interesting to note that Australian Aborigines with no written language came up with an animal conservation system that has worked for 30,000 years. They realised that if everyone ate every thing then there would be extinction. Each child born was given a guardian animal, these children could never eat their guardian animal. This meant that in each tribe there was a conservation movement.

 

[knotinterested]

It is interesting to note that Australian Aborigines with no written language came up with an animal conservation system that has worked for 30,000 years. They realised that if everyone ate every thing then there would be extinction. Each child born was given a guardian animal, these children could never eat their guardian animal. This meant that in each tribe there was a conservation movement.

I've never read anything about the Australian Aborigines - I only know of their existence. I do find it interesting how such primitive people have ways of doing things that head-off future problems.

 

[silkythighs]

Are you trying to declare humans are not natural or part of nature. This argument makes no sense, we share genes are brain function with most life on this planet. To try and seperate humans from animals is a poor argument at best

That's because he wants it both ways. He insists humans are just animals too, but wants human's do be moral;l and ethical. Well animals don't have the slightest notion of morality or ethics. It's just survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten, predator or prey. So that's why humans and animals are different. I commend zoo50 for his ethics, but morality is often relative. Cultures differ and one can't simply dictate to others how they should live.

Also native Americans totally relied on animals for survival. Their veneration for wild animals was due to this fact of life. I'd certainly wouldn't want buffalo and deer to get mad at me for hunting them and making them go away.

"I will remain what I am until I die, a hunter, and when there are no buffalo or other game I will send my children to hunt and live on prairie, for where an Indian is shut up in one place his body becomes weak." - Sitting Bull

 

[Zoo50]

Not true. You must be able to afford vitamin B12 supplements, a variety of plants to get all essential amino acids (some of which may be too expensive), and the plants that contain Omega 3, for example. Can people in poorer countries afford this? Not necessarily.

This isn't true. See this link:

Top 8 Myths About Eating Vegan, Busted

There are still many myths and misunderstandings surrounding a plant-based diet. We’ve dispelled the most popular vegan myths here.

www.forksoverknives.com

It says, "It’s easier to eat plant-based on a limited budget than it is to eat a meat-centered diet. Staples like grains, potatoes, bananas, and beans are some of the cheapest (and healthiest) things you can buy in the supermarket."

In all seriousness though, I'm glad you got that out of the way. I was going to ask if you thought euthanizing a suffering animal was "ethical", but you seem to have cleared that up.

I was pointing out that some humans find medically-assisted euthanasia (of humans) to be ethical, and it is legal in a few U.S. states. I personally don't think euthanizing any being (human or non-human) to be ethical.

So, you keep making the argument that we shouldn't eat animals because killing them is unethical or immoral. However, morality is subjective. It depends on who you ask. We all have our own "moral compass" formed by our unique experiences and world views. Eating animals is immoral to you, but not to others.

Saying "morality is relative" is just an excuse to keep eat meat (an inherently immoral practice). You probably wouldn't eat dog meat, so what makes it OK to eat pig meat or cow meat?

Association Fallacy
Ad hominem
Tu quoque
Straw man fallacy
Argument from fallacy

This is basically just personally attacking my positions and nothing else. And it pisses me off that people are actually liking this bullshit. I would argue that none of my arguments are fallacies as you claim.

There is a major link between dairy and veal, and no, it is not an "association fallacy" as you claim -- calves are ripped away from their mothers and sent to slaughter, while the mother cows are forced into a life of misery as "dairy cows".

Arguing that a person is selfish for putting their own interests as a higher priority than animal's interests is not "ad homimem" because it has to do with abstract interests, not the person himself/herself. Also, why are you not attacking the person who said "I sleep better [when I eat meat]" -- that person's comment is only concerned with their own personal comfort, not about philosophical issues.

What I said about the "avid biologist" is not a "straw man" fallacy because it is responding directly to a comment made by shrimpsoda (shrimpsoda made the claim that hunters are also "avid biologists") -- "straw man" arguments have to do with something that is not relevant to the discussion. If anything, you should have accused shrimpsoda of a "straw man" fallacy for bringing up the fact that hunters are also avid biologists.

You said that one of my arguments was an "argument from fallacy" -- I don't follow that. Claiming that someone else's argument is a fallacy is not a fallacy in and of itself (as you claim).

The arguments made by the pro-meat-eaters in this thread are full of fallacies, yet you don't challenge them because you agree with them (i.e. a bias).

Actually all carnivores and probably most omnivores require certain nutrients from animal products to survive. Arthritis is a common carnivore complaint as their teeth suffer damage. Each of these species gained a hunting advantage from eating animals. To dismiss nature because it is against your principles is being unrealistic to evolution.

This is nonsense. As I said, eating animals is not required (for humans) to survive. Other animals eat other animals, but just because non-human animals do it doesn't mean humans should also do it.

You really live in a modern time bubble. Native American Indians loved the animals that gave them life and gave thanks for the sacrifice of their lives as food.

Whether Native Americans approved of killing animals is irrelevant to this discussion. You're basically saying that different cultures, such as Native Americans, approve of killing animals (which is true), but it has nothing to do with whether such actions are moral or not.

If you have empathy for animals you have to accept that no one gets out alive. People or Carnivores that attack other people are usually dealt with in a summary fashion. Carnivores that are feeding themselves and their young are expected to kill. To be speciesist and declare that one animal on the planet should not eat meat because it is not natural is the definition of speciesism.

This is idiocy. While it's true that no human or other animal "gets out alive", there's a reason killing humans and killing dogs is illegal -- it's immoral. If there is a prohibition on killing humans and killing dogs (which there is), then there ought to be prohibitions on killing other animals as well (such as pigs and cows). There is no good argument for prematurely an animal's life (in slaughter, hunting, etc.)

Non-human animals that attack humans should not be killed, because they don't understand morality the way humans do. With regard to speciesism, not eating meat is actually the opposite of speciesism because it is affording moral value to all animals (i.e. not treating them as objects / food, which is speciesist). In other words, meat-eating is speciesist because it is about perceiving humans as "superior" and non-humans (some of them) as expendable food.

Are you trying to declare humans are not natural or part of nature. This argument makes no sense, we share genes are brain function with most life on this planet. To try and seperate humans from animals is a poor argument at best.

I'm not trying to separate humans from animal species -- and yes, humans are part of nature, and humans are animals. However, humans have an obligation to do no harm to animals, based on moral principles that humans understand (but non-humans do not).

I would love to see real world data on the extent of crop growth per season and animal growth. Plants developed a sugar storage system after Chlorophyls started converting sunlight into life giving energy. Plants started to grow after dark when there was no chlorophyl activity. This stored sugar is a large part of the energy for animal life. Animals are a stored form of the energy a plant stores to survive seasonal gaps in growth of plants. So if you take the season grass growth that humans can't digest and over the growing life of an animal that can eat the grass you are making use of the land that cannot feed Vegans.

Eating plants is simpler, better for one's health, and better for the environment (in comparison to eating animals -- remember that animals before being slaughtered eat lots of plants, so when one eats animals, they're eating plants and animals, which requires more energy and is more complicated than simply eating plants alone). Animals such as cows require far more farmland than plant-based techniques.

I refer back to previous quote no one gets off this planet alive, we all die and we can all benefit new life. Ethical killing is any death to prevent or reduce suffering. My great grand mother is 101 only due to a lack of euthanasia laws. She is in immense pain every day and suffers on a daily basis. If she had a choice she would have happy to die in comfort 11 years ago. If you love animals you will realise that forcing them to live in pain because we are not allowed to kill them is cruelty.

And I refer back to my comment that prematurely ending a being's life is immoral -- whether that being is a cow, pig, human, dog, etc. -- killing said being is immoral. A pig should be allowed to live his/her natural life, and it should not be prematurely ended by slaughter. Even if you argue that there is "ethical killing" (a dubious statement), you cannot argue that slaughter and hunting are "ethical killing" because they do not reduce suffering.

Death comes to us all. Death is not moral or immoral it is just the end. How we as humans die or the quality of life an animal has can be defined by morals. Stallions that get injured badly in territorial disputes will purposely wander into areas where carnivores live to end their own suffering. Are they immoral for committing suicide. Are the carnivores immoral for taking advantage of easy food. Stop using morals to define death. Morals can only be applied in the quality of care and limiting of suffering.

You came across as someone that would leave an injured animal to suffer an agonising death because killing it would be immoral. Most biology researchers have to do as you are describing when studying wild animals as their intervention may disrupt the research. It is agonising for people to sit back and watch an animal suffering especially when a lead foramen will stop all discomfort.

You say "death is not moral or immoral" -- if so, what do you think about a human who kills another human? And why is that act (murder) more immoral than a human who kills a pig, cow, etc.? If your answer is "humans are more valuable", then that is speciesism. As I said earlier, there are some instances in which a human killing another human is legal/ethical (such as the death penalty and medically-assisted euthanasia) -- but in most cases, it is immoral. So killing other animals should be considered immoral as well.

You bring up carnivores -- if a lion kills/eats another animal, that is not immoral because they are not aware of ethics the way humans are. So stop trying to use what animals in the wild do as an excuse to keep eating meat.

Also, the topic of euthanasia (whether to use it or not) is somewhat of a tangent, and doesn't really have anything to do with the main topic of this thread (veganism) -- people's meat doesn't come from euthanasia, it comes from slaughter / hunting.

The nature of all animals is to breed and put a strain on their own food source to beat out other competing species. So by not killing a deer in the field you are helping nature reach the starvation point for the entire species in one area. As the number of prey in an area increases it supports a greater number of predators. Humans are the most organised and most humane control of numbers though in modern days we are not as efficient as we once were. IE we waste products we would have found a use for in the past.

As I said, there is no such thing as "humane control" (when it involves lethal practices), because killing (prematurely ending) a being's life is immoral in and of itself.

I was not claiming Vegans have an agenda my comment was that Vegans and Flat earthers accept the evidence that supports their way of life but ignores other data that is in conflict with their ideology. There are groups of humans on this planet that can only eat meat for 6 months of the year or some that it is meat only all year round. This is just the way life is in these countries to say they are living immoral lives is just ridiculous.

The other part of my comment was that if we don't have farm land millions of animals will be wiped of the planet by Vegans.

This is bullshit. Animals will not be "wiped out by vegans" if people stop eating meat -- animals will continue to live, but for other purposes (such as being companion animals). You totally ignore the torturous conditions that billions of animals have to endure every day in factory farms -- they are treated as objects, not as beings.

I could have fun at your expense by stating we are not eating live deer. Once the deer is dead it becomes food for plants and worms and bacteria, Nature does not like waste. There are a variety of bugs and insects that need dead bodies in certain stages of decomposition. Ever wondered why a BBQ draws in flies from miles around.

What does this have to do with the fact that killing a deer (or a cow, pig, human, dog, etc.) is immoral? So insects and worms eat dead bodies -- what's your point? The act of killing a being is still immoral.

Actually the American research show that 88% of Americans have never tried Vegy diets. 12% have but 10% have returned to a natural diet. 0.5% of the Vegy diets are Vegan but there is no data to show how long that 0.5% stay on the diet. Most will return to a natural diet for health reasons for some it will be cost or convenience. The myth is true in that a healthy diet gets a higher energy and nutrient density. A Vegan diet has been proven to be possible but at a higher cost.

What are your sources? Also, stop calling a diet that involves cruelty (i.e. meat-eating) "natural" -- that's a euphemism for a cruel diet. Also, as I stated earlier, being vegan does not have to be expensive.

I don't think the Vegan movement has any care for the animals they are campaigning against. If there are no farmers there is no one paid to care for the animals which means they will either be eradicated from the planet or left to die in horrific ways.

Think about how life works. Every cell in your body contains the DNA to make a new clone of you. There are billions of cells in your body. Those cells are the descendants of every cell that makes up other life on the planet. Your cells did not spontaneously develop they are the end product of food and competition for millions of years. In other words your life is owed to all of the animals your ancestors ate for the last 65 Million years.

This is nonsense. Of course vegans care about animals (with the possible exception of vegans who are vegan ONLY for health reasons, but there's not many of them). You keep stating the myth that animals will be "eradicated" if people stop eating meat -- this is bullshit. Animals will continue to exist, but in different capacities. If you really are concerned about animals dying in horrific ways, you would stop eating meat because animals that are slaughtered die in horrific ways. The throats of cows are cut while they are still alive (when they are slaughtered) -- that is a horrific way to die, yet you turn a blind eye to it. Also, billions of animals live in horrific conditions in factory farms, yet you ignore that as well apparently.

What one's ancestors did is irrelevant. In the present, people can make the ethical choice to not eat meat.

Yet there is no cell in your body that contains you. Your essence, your life and your memories are not stored in one place in your body. Your meat is not who you are. We could clone your cell into a copy of you and it will not be you even though it is a direct copy of you. People get shot in the head all the time and suffer little to no change from the damage. Some religions talk about the spirit being seperate from the body in both humans and animals.

You have to accept that the Native Americans worship the spirits of the animals they ate to survive. They are sorry to kill the animals they must but they also give thanks to the animals that give them life.

As I said earlier, what certain cultures (such as Native Americans) did is not relevant to whether something is moral or not. Killing an animal (whether a Native American does it or not) is still immoral, regardless of how much "thanks" someone gives. Someone who kills a dog and then gives "thanks" for it still did an immoral thing -- they robbed the dog of his/her life.

*Sigh*
Why do I bother.

You're right, sometimes that does happen, it's rare and a hunter is required by law to pursue the animal and dispatch it if by any means possible. But that is the kind of death you are saying these animals should suffer naturally on the regular, so I fail to see your point.

What I'm saying is that the suffering and cruelty inflicted by hunters is not necessary (people do not need to hunt), and hunting causes unnecessary suffering (in addition to the killings being immoral in and of themselves).

You haven't addressed how much hunting contributes to conservation efforts in funding alone. Source: (https://elknetwork.com/hunting-conservation-paid-hunters/)

And no I am not comparing vegans to flat earthers, I am comparing YOU to flat earthers. You flat out deny what is a commonly known and scientifically backed fact, simply because it does not line up with what you consider ethical. So go and party with the anti vaxxer moms on facebook and be gone thank you sir.

While its true that hunters say they contribute to conservation, that is not a justification for the immoral action of killing a living being (whether for pleasure or food). One's own pleasure is not a justification for ending an animal's life (and hunters who say they contribute to conservation is just an excuse to continue their "blood sports"). There is no "scientifically backed fact" that hunting is moral/ethical.

That's because he wants it both ways. He insists humans are just animals too, but wants human's do be moral;l and ethical. Well animals don't have the slightest notion of morality or ethics. It's just survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten, predator or prey. So that's why humans and animals are different. I commend zoo50 for his ethics, but morality is often relative. Cultures differ and one can't simply dictate to others how they should live.

Yes, humans are animals, and yes, non-human animals don't have a notion of morality or ethics -- but because humans do, they have an obligation to be moral. (For example, killing an animal is immoral, and having sex with an animal is moral in most cases, so killing an animal should be illegal and sex with one should be legal). As I said earlier, saying "morality is relative" is an excuse to keep doing immoral things (like killing animals).

Response to whole thread: I am disappointed by all the pro-meat-eating, anti-vegan comments in the thread -- meat-eating is unethical and should not be tolerated. If people really loved animals, they would not eat any meat. So this thread if full of people who apparently do not truly love animals.

 

[caikgoch]

Zoo50, let's try a thought exercise, how would you feel about being eaten? Suppose a feral animal or group of animals came up to the front of your house, killed you, and consumed you. Would that be ethical or excusable? How about if was a member of your family? How would you feel about / react to that?

 

[Zoo50]

Zoo50, let's try a thought exercise, how would you feel about being eaten? Suppose a feral animal or group of animals came up to the front of your house, killed you, and consumed you. Would that be ethical or excusable? How about if was a member of your family? How would you feel about / react to that?

I don't have a problem with being eaten -- the reason for this is that non-human animals eat other animals (and they sometimes eat humans) -- they do this naturally (and without a sense of ethics). So if I were killed/eaten by an animal, it would be unfortunate, but it would not be morally wrong.

Also, in this hypothetical situation, people shouldn't have any malice towards the animal(s) that killed me.

 

[caikgoch]

How about if was a member of your family? How would you feel about / react to that?

You left out part of it.

 

[Zoo50]

You left out part of it.

Again, such an event would be unfortunate, but it would not be morally wrong. If a non-human animal kills a human, that animal should not be killed by humans (because the animal does not understand ethics/morals).

 

[caikgoch]

Again, such an event would be unfortunate, but it would not be morally wrong. If a non-human animal kills a human, that animal should not be killed by humans (because the animal does not understand ethics/morals).

So you would simply leave the animals near your home knowing that they had found an easy meal at your front door and they would almost certainly come back for another of your children?

Lest you think this is a hypothetical scenario:

"It's one of the worst things I've ever seen": Texas woman killed by feral hogs outside home

Christine Rollins' body was found outside home of elderly couple she cared for; sheriff says it's "one of the worst things I've ever seen"

www.cbsnews.com

Feral hogs in Texas attacked and killed a woman outside a home | CNN

A Texas woman was found dead after pre-dawn attack by a group of feral hogs outside a home, the Chambers County sheriff said.

www.cnn.com

Wild hogs kill Texas woman, sheriff says

"She would not only give you the shirt off her back, but also the pants, as well," Christine Marie Rollins' son-in-law said.

www.nbcnews.com

This is not far from where I live.

 

[Zoo50]

So you would simply leave the animals near your home knowing that they had found an easy meal at your front door and they would almost certainly come back for another of your children?

What is your point? To get me in a logical trap?

In a hypothetical scenario in which an animal killed a human, that animal could simply be relocated to a place where there are no humans. (The animal should not be killed). As I've said before, killing a non-human animal for any reason is immoral.

 

[knotinterested]

Really guys? Hypothetical scenarios? Have we run out of things to argue about?

 

[caikgoch]

What is your point? To get me in a logical trap?

In a hypothetical scenario in which an animal killed a human, that animal could simply be relocated to a place where there are no humans. As I've said before, killing a non-human animal for any reason is immoral.

So you have no problem with the animal eating other peoples' children? Because that scenario is *NOT* hypothetical.

The question is, are your ethics sane and sustainable? It's not looking good.

 

[Zoo50]

So you have no problem with the animal eating other peoples' children? Because that scenario is *NOT* hypothetical.

The question is, are your ethics sane and sustainable? It's not looking good.

You're appealing to emotion. I've said what I've said and I'm not going to repeat myself.

You started this tangent by saying this was just a "thought exercise", yet you later said the "thought exercise" is real -- you can't have it both ways. I think you're just being a bully now.

 

[SociallyHawkward]

This isn't true. See this link:

Top 8 Myths About Eating Vegan, Busted

There are still many myths and misunderstandings surrounding a plant-based diet. We’ve dispelled the most popular vegan myths here.

www.forksoverknives.com

It says, "It’s easier to eat plant-based on a limited budget than it is to eat a meat-centered diet. Staples like grains, potatoes, bananas, and beans are some of the cheapest (and healthiest) things you can buy in the supermarket."

You and the writers of that link are ignoring the science here (there aren't any citations in that link btw). There are certain nutrients your body needs to survive. One of these, Vitamin B12 (aka Cobalamin), is not found in plants. To get it without animal products, you need B12 supplements. B12 deficiency is serious, potentially causing brain damage and anemia.

Another issue is with amino acids. They're used to construct proteins in your body. There are 20, and of those 9 cannot be manufactured by us and therefore must come from somewhere else (essential amino acids). Plants are often missing one of more amino acids. Wheat and rice are missing lysine, Maize is missing lysine and tryptophan, etc. So, you must vary your diet to make sure you're getting all amino acids necessary. Some plants may be inaccessible or prohibitively expensive for poorer nations, which was my point.

So, my point still stands. People in developing countries may not be able to afford such a lifestyle without being unhealthy to do it.

I was pointing out that some humans find medically-assisted euthanasia (of humans) to be ethical, and it is legal in a few U.S. states. I personally don't think euthanizing any being (human or non-human) to be ethical.

No exceptions, noted.

Saying "morality is relative" is just an excuse to keep eat meat (an inherently immoral practice). You probably wouldn't eat dog meat, so what makes it OK to eat pig meat or cow meat?

First of all, I said subjective not relative. There's a difference.

No, it isn't an "excuse". Morality always depends on who you ask. Saying something is "inherently immoral" implies there's some central source for morality. If there was, we wouldn't be having this debate now would we? We would all have the same sense of right and wrong, but we don't.

It isn't any different, to me anyway. If it was offered to me, I'd try dog meat. Other cultures eat them, and it be interesting to experience those other cultures' food.

This is basically just personally attacking my positions and nothing else. And it pisses me off that people are actually liking this bullshit. I would argue that none of my arguments are fallacies as you claim.

There is a major link between dairy and veal, and no, it is not an "association fallacy" as you claim -- calves are ripped away from their mothers and sent to slaughter, while the mother cows are forced into a life of misery as "dairy cows".

Arguing that a person is selfish for putting their own interests as a higher priority than animal's interests is not "ad homimem" because it has to do with abstract interests, not the person himself/herself. Also, why are you not attacking the person who said "I sleep better [when I eat meat]" -- that person's comment is only concerned with their own personal comfort, not about philosophical issues.

What I said about the "avid biologist" is not a "straw man" fallacy because it is responding directly to a comment made by shrimpsoda (shrimpsoda made the claim that hunters are also "avid biologists") -- "straw man" arguments have to do with something that is not relevant to the discussion. If anything, you should have accused shrimpsoda of a "straw man" fallacy for bringing up the fact that hunters are also avid biologists.

You said that one of my arguments was an "argument from fallacy" -- I don't follow that. Claiming that someone else's argument is a fallacy is not a fallacy in and of itself (as you claim).

As if that's not what you're doing. No, I'm not attacking you personally. If it seemed like that, I apologize. I was pointing out, somewhat jokingly, how you were using a logical fallacy to prove a point when your points weren't entirely clear of them.

Saying something is negative because it's associated with something negative is an association fallacy. Saying a person is selfish is ad hominem because you're attacking their character instead of addressing their point. In hindsight, I will admit the straw man one wasn't correct. An "Argument from Fallacy" is arguing that because the argument contains a fallacy, the conclusion must be false.

The arguments made by the pro-meat-eaters in this thread are full of fallacies, yet you don't challenge them because you agree with them (i.e. a bias).

Oh sure, there's bad arguments on both sides of the debate. I didn't deny that.

I'm not trying to separate humans from animal species -- and yes, humans are part of nature, and humans are animals. However, humans have an obligation to do no harm to animals, based on moral principles that humans understand (but non-humans do not).

I would argue that you are trying to separate humans from animals. Right there in the second sentence.

This is bullshit. Animals will not be "wiped out by vegans" if people stop eating meat -- animals will continue to live, but for other purposes (such as being companion animals). You totally ignore the torturous conditions that billions of animals have to endure every day in factory farms -- they are treated as objects, not as beings.

Sure, they wouldn't go extinct. However, if we were to stop eating meat all at once (which, to clear, would never happen), I think most animals being raised for meat would be slaughtered. Think about it: There are something like 23 billion chickens in the world. That's roughly 3 chickens per person on the planet. But that's every person in the world, counting children and people in cities that can't take care of chickens. I fucking love chickens, but we couldn't possibly save all of them, sad as that is.

Now, chickens aren't the only animal being farmed. Imagine someone having to adopt a cow... in an apartment. Roughly 1 in 8 people in the world would have to keep a cow if we all stopped eating meat that fast.

Now, to be fair, these numbers don't take into account the percentage of these animal populations being held in factory farms. But it would at least give you an idea of the scale.

Imo, the only way would be to gradually scale back consumption. Assuming you could even get everyone on the planet on bored with the concept.

Response to whole thread: I am appalled by all the pro-meat-eating, anti-vegan comments in the thread -- meat-eating is unethical and should not be tolerated. If people really loved animals, they would not eat any meat. So this thread if full of people who apparently do not truly love animals.

You can be appalled if you want and think what want of it. I myself remain unconvinced that loving animals and eating meat are mutually exclusive.

 

[Austral]

Why vegans has to always be so extremist?

I am vegetarian, and I'm againt innecesary animal killing, buy if a dog or another animal attack me, a member of my family or my dog, I would fu*ing kill it if I can, just as I would kill another human if I have too, is just self defense.

 

[knotinterested]

The fact is that the whole argument for or against eating meat can go on until all of us are in our graves and it will never come to an end.

 

[Kolevra]

lol we're vegans and we don't think animal sex is against the veganess of veganism. How could it be. Theres extremists on every side of the fence. A good vegan is someone who cares for the planet, their health and making sure animals don't get fucked up. Theres a ton of science to back all of the agruments and just leave it at that. Don't be like the older generations where they see one negative person then lump everyone who has similar beleifs into the same box.

 

[ZTHorse]

Ok ive been following this thread for awhile and I can understand why the ideal should be that all humans should be vegan.

Which I actually approve of, if tomorrow there was a revolution and technology that a full vegan diet could replace a diet supplimented with meat consumption, absolutely i would go vegan. It has to be an all or nothing sort of revolution, because it would have to stop all animal killing for meat otherwise it will still continue somewhere else in the world. We just are not there yet with technology and even with human society. Society is lagging about 500 years behind techology.

It would require a major disruption to where going vegan tastes better, is cheaper, more practical and ultimately accessible to all humankind. It has to come to a point where average joe thinks its impractical to consume meat and actually prefers the taste of a vegan diet.

However, we live in a imperfect world and in some places people are starving to death, let alone given the choice to go vegan. In places like africa, the only way to obtain the protein needed is meat from the wild or from subsistance farming of meat.

Obtaining protien in africa is such a problem, that many resort to eating bush meat, and that causes ebola to spread and kill thousands.

As a zoophile, I eat meat but i dont eat the same flesh of my mates. So if i had a cow mate, I would cease my own consumption of meat.

 

[aruss]

I doubt the vegan movement would go as far as trying to ban caring ownership of animals, and even if they did the rest of normal people would just laugh at the idea and it would get nowhere. Don't worry!

On another note: LOL at all the people in here who trust their government to protect them and think gun control will help reduce "gun violence"

 

[arcticwolf69]

Response to whole thread: I am appalled by all the pro-meat-eating, anti-vegan comments in the thread -- meat-eating is unethical and should not be tolerated. If people really loved animals, they would not eat any meat. So this thread if full of people who apparently do not truly love animals.

Why, should we care that your god like superior morals are god like to YOU?
Why must moral supremacists scream and preach their god like morality to the rest of the world non stop?
Why, if these god like morals and ethics are so god like, does 90% of the WORLD not agree with them?
Why, can you not allow anyone else to think differently then you, when our lives do not effect you?

Personally i am appalled, that you are so god like that you believe everyone on the planet must accept your ethics and morals.
Why, are you so god like, that you have a right to judge others?
Why, are you so god like, that the entire world must convert to your beliefs?

 

[Rabbitwiseguy]

It's beyond me how anyone can claim to "love animals" while continuing to eat them. Just say you like pets and pets only. You can not call yourself an animal lover and eat a cheeseburger while sobbing about some festival in China where people eat dogs and treat them like cattle. It's hypocritical to the extreme. No animal lover can justify eating animals when they don't have to to survive. Using examples of lions eating zebra is absurd. I have been vegan for over a decade and I've heard every excuse in the book. Bottom line is some people just don't want to give up meat, no matter how badly the animals in the slaughter industry suffer.

 

[knotinterested]

It's beyond me how anyone can claim to "love animals" while continuing to eat them. Just say you like pets and pets only. You can not call yourself an animal lover and eat a cheeseburger while sobbing about some festival in China where people eat dogs and treat them like cattle. It's hypocritical to the extreme. No animal lover can justify eating animals when they don't have to to survive. Using examples of lions eating zebra is absurd. I have been vegan for over a decade and I've heard every excuse in the book. Bottom line is some people just don't want to give up meat, no matter how badly the animals in the slaughter industry suffer.

What about all the vegans, some of them well known vegans, that have returned to eating meat and are now telling others how much better they feel, how much more energy they have, how so many of their health problems have went away. Are they to be condemned for their now anti-vegetarian stance?

Yes you can love animals and still eat them. Your love of them might be just that you love to eat them. Moreover you don't have to embrace this idea that it is immoral to kill and animal and eat it just because you love animals. You don't have to be pro vegan to be an animal lover. Just because there are those of us that love animals and also enjoy a good steak doesn't mean we share your opinion nor does it mean we should be scolded and insulted because you don't happen to agree.

What if those people that are out there right now pushing for bestiality to be against the law everywhere were to say that if we, the zoo crowd truly loved animals then we would want animals to be able to live their lives as natural as possible. Pure and uncontaminated by human inter-specie sex.

So would you and those that say we don't love animals if we eat them say anyone who truly loves an animal will not have sex with that animal?

 

[Zoo50]

It's beyond me how anyone can claim to "love animals" while continuing to eat them. Just say you like pets and pets only. You can not call yourself an animal lover and eat a cheeseburger while sobbing about some festival in China where people eat dogs and treat them like cattle. It's hypocritical to the extreme. No animal lover can justify eating animals when they don't have to to survive. Using examples of lions eating zebra is absurd. I have been vegan for over a decade and I've heard every excuse in the book. Bottom line is some people just don't want to give up meat, no matter how badly the animals in the slaughter industry suffer.

I agree -- it's bizarre that people claim to love animals while also eating them. And then when they are criticized for it, they call the person criticizing them a "moral supremacist".

Essentially, people who eat animals (meat) are eating dead bodies.

What about all the vegans, some of them well known vegans, that have returned to eating meat and are now telling others how much better they feel, how much more energy they have, how so many of their health problems have went away. Are they to be condemned for their now anti-vegetarian stance?

As I said earlier, people should place the interests of animals (such as the entire lives of animals) as a higher priority than one's own trivial comforts (such as "how one feels"). An animal's life is more important that one's own interests.

Yes you can love animals and still eat them. Your love of them might be just that you love to eat them. Moreover you don't have to embrace this idea that it is immoral to kill and animal and eat it just because you love animals. You don't have to be pro vegan to be an animal lover. Just because there are those of us that love animals and also enjoy a good steak doesn't mean we share your opinion nor does it mean we should be scolded and insulted because you don't happen to agree.

This is not true. It is not possible to love animals and also eat them (It's like saying that someone who kills dogs also loves dogs -- it is nonsense). If someone "loves to eat animals", that is not love, that is the callous and selfish desire to exploit animals for their own gain.

So would you and those that say we don't love animals if we eat them say anyone who truly loves an animal will not have sex with that animal?

Sex with animals (in which humans have sex with animals) can happen in an ethical manner, therefore it is not morally wrong in all cases, and should not be illegal. Killing animals for food should be illegal because it is immoral and causes a being's life to end prematurely.

 

[knotinterested]

As I said earlier, people should place the interests of animals (such as the entire lives of animals) as a higher priority than one's own trivial comforts (such as "how one feels"). An animal's life is more important that one's own interests.

So putting the interests of the animal first should we also never have sex with animals? Or is it ok to fuck them we just can't eat them

 

[Zoo50]

So putting the interests of the animal first should we also never have sex with animals? Or is it ok to fuck them we just can't eat them

When someone has sex with animals, they will (hopefully) consider the interests of the animal they are having sex with -- which means that if the animal is showing signs of discomfort, the human stops. Interspecies sex certainly takes into consideration the animal's interests more than spaying/neutering, artificial insemination, slaughter, etc.

 

[InuShitsuji]

You know what? Thank you, @Zoo50, seriously... and @NightEule5.
Both your arguments make me think. While sometimes being infused with emotion (I won't exclude myself from that and some of my arguments have not exactly been fair or clean), you, and a few others, bring facts and research to the table.

At some point the disagreement becomes centered around the problem of morality then, and philosophy can still be debatable. However, there are so many non-fact-based, illegitimate arguments in this thread that are fueled by hateful, super-simplified thoughts and emotions that it makes me wanna cry out in outrage.

So, again, thanks for taking the time to actually react to comments by employing resources and relying on research you find.

 

[InuShitsuji]

Side note: @aruss: Seriously? Is this debate too trivial for you that you bring another never-ending topic to this thread?

Gun control and gun violence?
I'd have a lot to say about that but thankfully people stuck to the topic at hand and so I'll do the same.

 

[knotinterested]

When someone has sex with animals, they will (hopefully) consider the interests of the animal they are having sex with -- which means that if the animal is showing signs of discomfort, the human stops. Interspecies sex certainly takes into consideration the animal's interests more than spaying/neutering, artificial insemination, slaughter, etc.

Your defense is applaudable - but if we are to totally respect animals then we should let them live out their lives without our taking an interest in them, without intruding on their purity, and that would mean that we are violating their rights by having sex with them. You can't justify the having sex part as being ok. You can't say sex is ok because it doesn't involve their death. Any infraction is a violation of their right to be, whether it involve their death or just having sex. If you're going to view it in one sense then you have to take the entire scope and relate to it in that fashion.